Court No. - 26
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 48996 of 2017 Petitioner :- Irshad Hussain Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rupesh Srivastav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
Oral
Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 9.12.2016 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, District Bareilly and the order dated 27.9.2017 passed by the Appellate Authority rejecting his Appeal.
A further prayer has been made for issuance of a mandamus to the respondents to reinstate the license of Fair Price Shop of the petitioner forthwith.
Initially, when this matter was argued before this Court, this Court had passed an order on 16.1.2018 which is extracted herein below:-
"This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 09.12.2016 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Bareilly cancelling the licence of the fair price shop of the petitioner and the order dated 21.11.2007 passed by the Appellate Authority rejecting his appeal and further praying for issuance of mandamus to the respondents to restore the licence of the petitioner.
Learned Standing Counsel may file counter affidavit within six weeks bringing on record the procedure/requirement in law of issuing of 'parchis' and the procedure for issuance of ration card to eligible card holders as it is the case of the petitioner that he is not responsible either for making the list of eligible families/card holders nor he is responsible for issuance of 'parchis'. He is only responsible for complying with the list already sent by the authorities and distributing scheduled commodities to eligible card holders/families mentioned therein.
List this matter on 27.02.2018."
Thereafter a counter affidavit has been filed sworn by the Area Rationing Officer. In this counter affidavit, the relevant provisions of clause (4) sub clause (1) to (21) of the U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016 have been filed as Annexure CA-1, and also a copy of the Government Order dated 30.3.2017 has been filed wherein it has been mentioned in paragraph 4 that till new digitalised ration cards are made available to the beneficiaries, the essential commodities be distributed on the basis of "parchis" to be issued to eligible beneficiaries as per the list of beneficiaries in the official website of the department. It is on the basis of this averment made in paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is the department which makes out the "Parchis" and the petitioner has nothing at all to do with them, and therefore, the petitioner could not have charged Rs. 500/- to Rs 1,000/- from the beneficiaries for giving them "Parchis". The department is responsible for issuing such "Parchis" and not the petitioner.
Learned standing counsel however has pointed out from the order impugned dated 9.12.2016 passed by the SDM, Sadar, District Bareilly that the allegation with regard to the petitioner is not with respect to issuing "Parchis" as aforesaid, but it is with respect to not handing out the "Parchis" sent by the department to the eligible beneficiaries and keeping the same with him till such time that the beneficiaries paid Rs. 500/- or more to get hold of this "Parchi" which was duly prepared by the department and sent to the petitioner for distribution.
Moreover, in the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the petitioner has with respect to all the complainants said that the complainants had deliberately not approached the Fair Price Shop of the petitioner to take their ration and their ration is available in the stock of the petitioner for the month in question. The Stock Register of the petitioner was verified and it was found that in the Stock Register only 56 kgs of wheat and 24 kgs of rice has been shown and the stock of sugar and kerosene has been shown as Nil. Had the petitioner kept the stock of the complainants with him with regard to the scheduled commodities as the beneficiaries were not deliberately approaching him, then the left over stock should have indicated both kerosine oil and sugar in it.
There was a specific allegation against the petitioner made by different beneficiaries with regard to non distribution of scheduled commodities and the petitioner has given more or less, the same reply to each such allegation saying that the complainants were not deliberately approaching the petitioner' stock to take their ration and their ration is secured in his Stock. The Stock Register belied the claim made by the petitioner.
The Licensing Authority has careful examined the Stock Register, according to which, the petitioner lifted 856 litres of kerosene oil for the month of March 2016, but in the Sale Register only 576 litres was shown to have been distributed. Similarly for the month of April, 2016, 770 litres of kerosene oil was lifted and 612 litres of kerosene oil was shown to have been distributed. For the month of May, 2016, 800 litres of kerosene oil was lifted and 612 litres of kerosene oil was shown to have been distributed. In each month, therefore there should have been some stock left over as the petitioner on the whole distributed 626 litres of kerosene oil less for the months of March, April and May 2016, but in the Stock Register, the same stock for kerosene oil has been shown to be Nil. It was apparent from the record that the petitioner was fudging the same and in fact diverting the stock of kerosene for some extraneous reasons in his own benefit.
I do not find any factual or legal infirmity in the order impugned. The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.3.2018 Arif