1. This writ petition basically commenced with assailing the orders dated 26.7.2008 passed by Deputy Collector, Chitrakoot, cancelling fair price shop agreement of the petitioner and appellate order dated 30.7.2009, passed by Deputy Commissioner (Food), Chitrakoot Dham Mandal Banda dismissing petitioner's appeal. It was a simple case, raising a question, whether action taken by respondents was valid and just, in the facts and circumstances of the case, but has turned into a serious matter involving much larger issues having wider ramifications upon the poor people at large residing in the State, and, in particular, in the seven districts forming a part, better known as "Bundelkhand area", of State of U.P.
2. The petitioner Vinod Singh, son of Lakhan Singh, was appointed/engaged, in 1991, as an agent for distribution of essential commodities, under Public Distribution System (hereinafter referred to as "PDS"), to the beneficiaries of scheme in Village Akbarpur, Block and District Chitrakoot.
3. On 23.2.2008, Collector, Chitrakoot himself made an inspection of Village Akbarpur. Several card holders in the category of Antyodaya, Below Poverty Line (hereinafter referred to as "BPL") and Above Poverty Line (hereinafter referred to as "APL") made complaints about irregularities committed by petitioner in supply of essential commodities and other goods meant for distribution under PDS. The statements of some of beneficiaries were recorded by Supply Inspector on 23.2.2008 itself, and, thereafter, an FIR under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act was registered in P.S. Kotwali, Karvi Chitrakoot numbered as Case Crime No.537 of 2008 on 24.2.2008.
4. The petitioner's fair price shop agreement was suspended by Deputy Collector vide order dated 26.2.2008. He was also required to show cause. Three charges were levelled against him which read as under: vkjksi la[;k & ¼1½ esa] mfYyf[kr] vUR;ksn; ;kstuk ds 07 ¼lkr½ dkMZ/kkjdksa] ch-ih-,y- ;kstuk ds 06 ¼N%½ dkMZ/kkjdksa ,oa ,-ih-,y- ;kstuk ds 10 ¼nl½ dkMZ/kkjdksa ;k] muds ifjokj ds lnL;ksa ds fyf[kr c;kuksa ds vuqlkj] phuh ,oa feV~Vh rsy dk forj.k] fu/kkZfjr nj ls] vf/kd nj ij fd;s tkus dk vkjksi gSA vkjksi la[;k&¼2½ esa mfYyf[kr vUR;ksn; ;kstuk ds 01 ¼,d½ dkMZ/kkjd] ch-ih-,y- ;kstuk ds 6 ¼N%½ dkMZ/kkjdksa ,oa ,-ih-,y- ;kstuk ds 02 ¼nks½ dkMZ/kkjdksaa ;k] muds ifjokj ds lnL;ksa ds fyf[kr c;kuksa ds vuqlkj] fu/kkZfjr forj.k Ldsy ds vuqlkj] [kk|kUu izkIr u [email protected]/kkZfjr dqy ewY; ls vf/kd ewY; ij forj.k djus rFkk ,-ih-,y- dkMksZ ij] ekg tuojh 08 esa] feV~Vh dk rsy u fn;s tkus ds vkjksi gSaA vkjksi la[;k&¼3½ esa] lw[kk jkgr ;kstuk ds vUrxZr izfr ykHkkFkhZ dks ekg Qjojh&08 fnukad 13-02-08 dks] 15 fdxzk- xsgwWa ds LFkku ij] 12 fdxzk- xsgwWa fn;s tkus dk vkjksi gSA "As per written statements of 07 (seven) cardholders of Antyoday Scheme, 06 (six) card holders of B.P.L. Scheme and 10 (ten) card holders of A.P.L. Scheme or of their family members as recorded in Charge No. (1), there is an allegation of distributing sugar and kerosene oil at the rates higher than the fixed ones. As per written statements of 01 (one) cardholder of Antyoday Scheme, 06 (six) card holders of B.P.L. Scheme and 02 (two) card holders of A.P.L. Scheme or of their family members as recorded in Charge No. (2), there are allegations of non-receipt of food-grains as per the prescribed distribution scale/distribution thereof at the prices higher than the fixed net price and non-distribution of kerosene oil in the month of January 2008 on A.P.L. cards. In Charge No. (3), there is an allegation of distributing 12 Kg of wheat instead of 15 Kg thereof on 13.02.2008 to every beneficiary under Drought Relief Scheme." (English Translation by the Court)
5. The petitioner denied all these charges. In respect to charges No.1 and 2, the card holders, who are said to have given statements against petitioner, filed their affidavits dated 26.3.2008 stating that they were supplied essential commodities namely wheat, rice, sugar and kerosene oil on prescribed rates and in requisite quantity; and in respect to charge no.3 the defence was that quantity of wheat supplied to dealer itself was less than the prescribed quantity, hence, he had no option but to distribute only that much quantity which he received.
6. The Deputy Collector observed in its order dated 26.7.2008 that the reply of petitioner in respect to charges No.1 and 2 is partially correct but mostly unsatisfactory. In respect to charge no.3 he found reply satisfactory. Thereafter he proceeded to cancel the agreement for committing irregularities in distribution of essential commodities. He however founded his order on a new charge that petitioner did not distribute 1660 litres of kerosene oil lifted in February, 2008 nor transferred the same to another dealer with whom petitioner's shop was attached after suspension.
7. The petitioner filed appeal vide memo of appeal dated 25.8.2008. He explained about the new charge noticed for the first time in cancellation order, that the dealer with whom petitioner's shop was attached, declined to purchase kerosene oil. This fact was intimated to the authority concerned hence no responsibility can be fastened with the petitioner for non distribution of kerosene oil lifted in the month of February, 2008. He also said that subsequently kerosene oil was distributed to card holders in presence of witnesses.
8. Evidently the allegation of non distribution of kerosene oil lifted in the month of February 2008 did not form part of the charge sheet but was added in cancellation order dated 26.7.2008. The petitioner pointed it out during the course of argument, before Appellate Authority, but he has rejected appeal vide order dated 30.7.2009. Besides others, the appellate order says that petitioner is "guilty of distributing lessor quantity of foodgrains to card holders in the category of BPL and Antyodaya".
9. The respondents No.2 and 3 had filed a counter affidavit sworn by Sri Ashwani Kumar Srivastava, Tehsildar Karvi, Chitrakoot. It stated that an inspection was made on 23.2.2008 when the petitioner was found committing irregularities in distribution of essential commodities. He had violated provisions of U.P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order, 2004 as well as terms and conditions of the agreement. A first information report under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act was registered as Case Crime No.537 of 2008 on 24.2.2008 by the Supply Inspector at P.S. Kotwali, Chitrakoot. The agreement was suspended on 25/26.2.2008 and after considering petitioner's reply dated 27.3.2008, the agreement was cancelled vide order dated 26.7.2008, and, appeal has also been dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner. It is also averred that the petitioner was appointed as fair price shop dealer in 1991. Earlier also, discrepancies were found in his running of shop. In a checking made on 30.7.1993 certain discrepancy was found resulting in suspension of his shop which however was restored with a warning. Thereafter another checking was made on 10th July, 2007 which also resulted in suspension of his agreement but was restored by order dated 11.12.2007 with a stern warning and forfeiture of security money of Rs.250/- and penalty of Rs.3,000/-. In checking made on 23.2.2008, complaints of irregularities and improper distribution of essential commodities and selling of foodgrains in black market were reported. The Supply Inspector conducted enquiry and submitted report whereafter action in question was taken. When petitioner's shop was attached with another dealer namely Madan Mohan of Village Gonda, he transferred the foodgrains and sugar available in stock to the said dealer but not kerosene oil. The Deputy Collector by order dated 10.4.2008 directed petitioner to transfer kerosene oil lying in his shop to Madan Mohan but he failed.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended, when essential commodity itself was supplied to the petitioner in lessor quantity than that was prescribed, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for supply of short quantity to card holders and this fact has not been examined by Appellate Authority. The petitioner took a specific defence that quantity of foodgrains supplied to him was less than the required quantity, hence he had no option but to supply only that much of quantity which was made available to him. He contended that though there was no shortage of foodgrains in the coffer of State, yet, authorities in their wisdom very frequently used to allot lessor quantity of foodgrains to Fair Price Dealer(s) which resulted in short supply of foodgrains to actual card holders. For this kind of lapses, Fair Price Dealer cannot be held responsible. He also contended, all the card holders whose ex parte statements were relied against petitioner, had submitted their affidavits that they received essential commodities at prescribed rates and had no grievance about the quantity, yet, without identifying as to what evidence remained against the petitioner, and without recording finding about the genuity of these affidavits, in a casual and cryptic manner, the authorities below have proceeded to cancel petitioner's fair price shop agreement without giving any cogent reason for the same. The findings are based on conjecture, surmises and even otherwise wholly illegal and arbitrary.
11. This Court when heard the matter on 4.11.2011 was surprised to hear that essential commodities meant for poor people were not being allotted to distributors namely Fair Price Dealer(s) upto the required quantity though there was no case of the respondents that commodities upto the required quantity are not available. In fact, this kind of discrepancy had come to this Court, in recent past, in several others matters also. This matter relates to Chitrakoot, a part of Bundelkhand Area, which is considered to be one of the most backward areas of this State and poor farmers and other people engaged in agriculture are committing suicide due to starvation etc., as was reported in print and electronic media and in a PIL, this Court had taken notice thereof. The fact that the State authorities are supplying lessor quantity of foodgrains under PDS in such a highly backward area, shocked this Court. The poor people, who are not getting essential commodities under PDS upto appropriate quantity meant for them, obviously would be compelled to starve or suffer the hunger due to shortage of foodgrains. The consequences are easily understandable.
12. Since the aforesaid counter affidavit was silent to the issue raised by petitioner regarding short supply, this Court found that this matter needs further examination. In this backdrop, the Court passed a detailed order dated 4.11.2011, requiring certain informations from respondent authorities including how and in what circumstances short supply of foodgrains and other essential commodities is being made in this backward area (Bundelkhand part of State of Uttar Pradesh), and the relevant part whereof reads as under: "....
16. In order to consider the matter further, this Court find expedient to direct the respondents to place on record material to show the reason for short supply of food grains under Welfare Scheme meant for affected persons like the present one and other relevant aspects as under:
(i) What are the schemes applicable for distribution of foodgrains to poor persons and how much money has been assigned for the same.
(ii)What are the number of people covered under such schemes in the country, and, in particular in the State of U.P., and, more particular, in the region of Bundelkhand.
(iii)In what manner public distribution system is operating in Bundelkhand area i.e. the number of dealers Village Panchayat-wise number of unit they cater, quantity of food-grains supplied monthly for regular distribution and in the case of special situations like draught, flood etc.
(iv)Whether any criminal action has been taken against officials concerned within whose jurisdiction poor farmers or other agricultural persons committed suicide or died due to hunger or starvation.
(v)What is the quantum of foodgrains purchased by the government through F.C.I. or through other agencies annually in the last 5 years. What is the quantum of foodgrains distributed under Public Distribution System or any other similar scheme meant for poor people, and, the quantum of foodgrains destroyed, spoiled or damaged on account of official apathy, negligence etc. which may be on account of lack of warehouse facilities or during course of transportation or otherwise. Whether any action was taken against the official responsible for such losses."
13. The respondents thereafter filed a supplementary counter affidavit (hereinafter referred to as "SCA") sworn on 28.11.2011 by Sri Girdhari Lal, Deputy Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies, Chitrakoot Dham Mandal Banda. In para 9 of SCA it is stated that petitioner's reply in respect to charge no.3 was found satisfactory and hence order of cancellation is not founded thereon. It is founded on charge no.1 and 2 as also non transfer of 1660 liters of kerosene oil to subsequently appointed dealer after suspension of petitioner's agreement. However, in respect to the query made by this Court in para 16 of the order dated 4.11.2011, the deponent of SCA said that the information required by Court needs more time but whatever information is available is being placed on record. The SCA states about four schemes, running under Food & Civil Supplies Department of State of Uttar Pradesh, under PDS, for the benefit of poor and poorest section of Society, which are :
(i) BPL -: (a) It is meant for the families living below poverty line. The families having an annual income of Rs.25546.60, per family in urban areas, and Rs.19884/- per family in rural areas, constitute the above category. The respondents have identified 1.06 crores BPL families across the State. It is said that there are still some families who qualify under BPL but they have not been included in BPL for the reason that Government of India has fixed target of 1.06 crores BPL families under PDS. Hence, those excluded/left out families, are being provided benefits under U.P. Mukhya Mantri Mahamaya Garib Arthik Madad Yojna and have been covered under APL.
(b) The BPL Scheme in seven districts of Bundelkhand covers 3,76,459 families who are provided 15 kgs. of wheat @ Rs.4.65 per kg.; 20 kg. of rice @ Rs.6.15 per kg. and 700 gms. of sugar @ Rs.13.50 per kg. The above quantity is per family in respect to wheat and rice but per unit per card in respect to sugar. The BPL families included in APL have been provided APL card and are given monthly aid of Rs.300/- per family under Mahamaya Garib Arthik Madad Yojna. In the State of U.P. number of families in this category are 24.80 lacs.
(ii) Antyodaya Anna Scheme (in short "AAY"):-It includes the poorest among the poor persons under the poverty line selected on the basis of descending order of family income. There are 2,33,966 families covered by Antyodaya Anna Scheme in Bundelkhand region while in the State, it is more than 40 lacs families. They are provided 15 kgs. of wheat @ Rs.2/- per kg.; 20 kg. Rice @ Rs.3 per kg.; 700 gms. of sugar per unit per card @ Rs.13.50/- per kg.
(iii) APL:- The families Above Poverty Line have been issued ration cards under APL Scheme. In the State of U.P. there are 3.25 crores APL Ration Cards out of which 16,87,451 comes from Bundelkhand Region. They are provided kerosene oil every month as per rates fixed by the State under relevant Government Orders. The foodgrains distributed to APL card holders is according to the Government Orders and the rates and quantities as determined by Government of India from time to time.
(iv) Rural Foodgrain Bank Programme: Under this Scheme 410 Banks are running in Bundelkhand Region. The Gram Sabha of respective region selects 40 BPL/Antyodaya beneficiaries in an open meeting and they are provided one quintal wheat free of cost subject to return thereof in installments. The return however cannot be compelled. Under the said scheme 6400 quintals of wheat was distributed whereagainst only 2431.05 quintals was returned.
14. The Chairman, Central Vigilance Commission (on PDS) vide letter dated 21.6.2011 informed U.P. Government that Planning Commission has identified 15 districts of State of U.P. as Poorest and Backward. Out of seven districts in Bundelkhand Region, only five were initially identified by Planning Commission as poorest and backward districts which are Lalitpur, Banda, Chitrakoot, Mahoba and Hamirpur. District Jalaun and Jhansi did not figure therein. The remaining districts in this category are Sonbhadra, Unnao, Raebareilly, Sitapur, Hardoi, Fatehpur, Lakhimpur Khiri, Mirzapur, Kushinagar and Barabanki. However, six more districts were included in this category subsequently vide letter dated 2.8.2011 which included "District Jalaun" also besides Gorakhpur, Jaunpur, Kaushambi, Azamgarh and Pratapgarh. In these twenty one districts 7,59,786 families have been identified as the poorest among poor families and as per prescribed norms, they require 11,396.79 metric tonnes wheat per month (1,36,761.48 metric ton per annum) and 15195.72 metric tonnes of rice per month (1,82,348.64 metric ton per annum). Whether it is in addition to the figures already mentioned is not clear. No attempt to clarify has been made by respondents in this regard.
15. The foodgrain is made available to Food and Civil Supply Department of the State Government (hereinafter referred to as "UPFCSD") by Food Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as "FCI") for distribution under PDS. The price paid by UPFCSD to FCI is, at the rates, as under: Commodities AAY BPL APL Wheat Rs.2.00 Rs.4.15 Rs.6.10 Rice Rs.3.00 Rs.5.65 Rs.8.30
16. The sale price of commodities to AAY card holders is the same as purchase price. However, to BPL Card Holders the purchase price of wheat is Rs.4.15 but its sale price is Rs.4.65 i.e. with a moderate hike of 50 paise per kg. Similarly, rice is sold against the purchase price of Rs.5.65 to BPL card holders at Rs.6.15 i.e. with a moderate hike of 50 paise per kg. Similar is the position in respect to APL card holders where also the sale price is 50 paise per kg. above than the purchase price, which comes to Rs.6.60 for wheat and Rs.8.80 for rice.
17. In para 18 of SCA the respondents have stated that in the entire country, total number of 652.03 lacks families are covered under these schemes, out of which, in the State of U.P., 65,84,500 families are under BPL scheme, and 40,94,500 families are under AAY. In Bundelkhand Region, the number of families in BPL is 3,76,459 and in AAY, 2,34,246. In support, reference is made to Annexure 2 and 4 of SCA which shows identification of households under AAY as on 30.9.2010 and total figures in respect to BPL and AAY on the said date.
18. Learned Additional Chief Standing counsel appearing for respondents has clarified that AAY here refers to Antyodaya Anna Yojna, and does not talk of APL and others. But here, also I find this information a bit confusing for the reason that in para 12, respondents have given total number of families in BPL as 1.06 crores in the state of U.P. while in para 18, this figure has been brought down to 65,84,500.
19. From Annexure 4 to the supplementary counter affidavit also respondents could not explain that figures given in respect to BPL families included AAY families or both are different. This discrepancy could not be explained by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.
20. However, the break up of number of families in different categories or the total number of ration cards issued in seven districts of Bundelkhand is as under: Sl. No. Name of the Districts.
The total number of ration cards issued Total B.P.L.
Antyodaya APL Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 Jhansi 74310 45831 451657 571798 2 Lalitpur 44478 27281 157628 229387 3 Jalaun 61343 37766 332413 431522 4 Banda 78361 48348 342432 469141 5 Hamirpur 58538 36022 159570 254130 6 Mahoba 26694 16224 203384 246302 7 Chitrakoot 32735 22774 129907 185416 Total 3,76,459 2,34,246 17,76,991 23,87,696
21. The respondents also gave details of quantity (in Metric Tonnes) of foodgrains alloted in 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 under various schemes and it read as under: Fin.Year Antyodaya BPL APL Wheat Rice Wheat Rice Wheat Rice 2006-07 566080.005 1153609.995 911262.405 1854227.595 1901469.000 3247146.000 2007-08 635511.200 1084178.800 1023020.700 1742469.300 17412.000 550770.000 2008-09 566077.440 1153612.560 1207871.340 1557618.660 192838.000 8640.000 2009-10 566077.440 1153612.560 1306638.840 1458851.160 2174719.000 0.000 2010-11 565889.120 1153612.560 1195329.070 1570160.930 2295767.080 77315.000 (The figures in bold are apparently incorrect/not supplied.)
22. Against the aforesaid allocation, actual quantity (in Metric Tonnes) distributed, under aforesaid three schemes, in the last five financial years, is as under: Fin. Year Antyodaya BPL APL Wheat Rice Wheat Rice Wheat Rice 2006-07 559712.44 1123710.854 828477.373 1641403.383 33927.108 5334.164 2007-08 631358.554 1080185.245 980548.917 1644734.976 19957.937 934.916 2008-09 565820.395 1151654.667 1188615.290 1533165.082 134765.779 5225.820 2009-10 565894.582 1152858.289 1304816.959 1455179.309 2035548.314 0.000 2010-11 563636.071 1146153.269 1176883.347 1538234.197 1760278.102 42500.952
23. From the figures referred to in para 21 and 22 (above), it becomes evident that huge quantity of foodgrains though allotted, but remained undistributed, in different categories, in the last five financial years such quantity (in Metric Tonnes) of foodgrains is as under: Financial Year Antyodaya BPL APL Wheat Rice Wheat Rice Wheat Rice 2006-07 6367.565 29899.105 82785.032 212824.212 1867541.892 3241811.836 2007-08 4152.646 3993.555 42471.783 97734.324
-2545.937 549835.084 2008-09 257.045 1957.893 19256.05 24453.578 58072.221 3414.18 2009-10 182.858 754.271 1821.881 3671.851 139170.686 0.000 2010-11 2253.049 7459.291 18445.723 31926.733 535488.978 34814.048
24. The respondents, besides above, also gave district-wise details as under: District No. of Village No. of FPS No. of CH in BPL No. of CH in AAY No. of CH in APL Total No. of units in BPL No. of Units in AAY No. of Units in APL Total Jhansi 437 560 58878 36553 244279 339710 235512 146212 977116 1358840 Lalitpur 340 400 36891 24127 125440 186458 147564 96508 501760 745832 Jalaun 564 617 50174 32203 222399 304776 200696 128812 889596 1219104 Banda 437 636 71574 43341 183037 297952 286296 170064 732184 1188544 Hamirpur 316 412 48692 29735 126345 204772 243319 148785 630327 1022431 Mahoba 247 300 22499 14153 153668 190320 101245 56612 946260 1104117 Chitrakoot 330 393 33116 20980 109229 163325 140743 90214 450023 680980 (CH = Card Holders)
25. The above data also shows that the average unit with each card is more than four i.e., one family having one card consists of alteast 4 and above units. Moreover, the above data does not tally with the figures referred in para 19 above. This discrepancy could not be explained by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.
26. Further, the above situation reveals and depicts a really shocking and surprising state of affairs. The State Government admits that people in the category of Antyodaya are the poorest of the poor. Yet, a whopping quantum i.e. 2253.049 metric tonns of wheat remained undistributed in 2010-11. One family under Antyodaya Scheme is distributed 15 kg. of wheat per month. It means, 150203 families under Antyodaya category were deprived of wheat in the entire year i.e. 2010-11. It comes to more than 12516 families per month under AAY who were so deprived of wheat under PDS. Similarly, 7459.291 M.T. Rice remained undistributed to AAY families in 2010-11, which comes to 372965 families in the year, and about 31080 families in a month.
27. Similarly for BPL category, 18445.723 M.T. of undistributed wheat in 2010-11 would mean deprivation to 12,29,715 families in the year, i.e. 1,02,476 families per month. The 31926.733 M.T. of undistributed rice to BPL category in 2010-11 would mean deprivation to 15,96,337 families in a year and 1,33,028 families in a month. Except 2008-09 and 2009-10, in earlier two years, the situation was even worse.
28. There is some more data which I would refer while discussing the matter in further detail except one more fact that in para 22 of SCA it is said that the total loss suffered by State due to damage of foodgrains, in the last three years i.e. 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09, was only Rs.1,75,952/-; Rs.2,27,268/- and Rs.4,19,608/- respectively. The total loss in the aforesaid three years therefore, as stated in para 22, was around Rs.9 lacs and odd. The above statement was supported by statement of loss filed as Annexure SCA-6 and a perusal thereof shows something totally different. The amount of loss shown in 2006-07 was Rs.1,53,19,20,730/- i.e. 153 crores and odd. Similarly in 2007-08 it is about 166 crores and odd; and in 2008-09 about 295 crores and odd. These figures are also provisional for the reason that various entries in the chart are blank meaning thereby figures under those heads are/were not available till preparation of this chart. The losses therefore, may be actually much more. It appears, that, for the purpose of present case, this chart has been prepared hurriedly and after a formal verification by Finance Controller as also the Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies, has been filed with SCA without caring to its accuracy.
29. Not only the losses mentioned in para 22 of SCA, even the number of card holders mentioned in various districts of Bundelkhand was showing different and contradictory figures. The SCA therefore apparently contained some incorrect information. Faced with this situation, and when learned Addl. Chief Standing Court also failed to explain this inconsistency, this Court passed another order on 14.3.2012 as under: "1. Pursuant to this Court's order dated 4.11.2011, a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed sworn by Sri Girdhari Lal, Deputy Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies, Chitrakoot Dham Mandal, District Banda. Apparently, information given therein is false, incorrect and self contradictory and shows an attempt on the part of respondents to mislead the Court. For example, in para 19 there are two charts. In one chart, number of ration cards issued in the category of B.P.L., Antyoday and A.P.L. in seven District are mentioned much higher than what is mentioned in second chart. For example, in first Chart, number of B.P.L. cards in Jhansi are mentioned as 74310 while in the second chart, it is 58878. Similar is the position in respect to all the three categories as well as all seven Districts.
2. Besides above, additional allocation in above seven Districts has also been shown meaning thereby there ought not to be any occasion of any short supply but how short supply could have resulted in the case in hand, as pleaded by petitioner and not controverted by the respondents, is not understandable.
3. Further, in respect to losses, in para 22 the figure shown are a few lacs rupees i.e. less than five lacks in three years i.e. 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 while the chart appended as Annexure SCA-6 shows loss running in several hundred crores. Learned counsel for respondents also could not tell the amount in the quantum of essential commodities which is said to have been lost in transit or storage in the State of U.P. This loss is other than that of F.C.I.
4. Let respondent no. 3 appear before this Court on 9.4.2012 along with detailed and appropriate affidavit giving informations as sought in para 16 of order dated 4.11.2011."
30. Another affidavit titled as "Compliance Affidavit" sworn on 7.4.2012 by Sri Balvinder Kumar, Principal Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies Department, Government of U.P., Lucknow was filed. The discrepancies in number of card holders in para 19 of SCA have been explained by stating that in first chart, figures reflected total number of card holders at District level while in the second chart, the figures relates to only rural areas i.e. Gram Panchayats wise, FPS dealers, and the units catered by them. He said that first chart represents urban and rural population both in the district, while, second chart relates to only rural population.
31. This Court took upon this explanation correct and consolidated both these figures which resulted in the situation as under: District BPL APL Antyodaya Total Rural Urban Total Rural Urban Total Rural Urban Jhansi 74310 58878 15432 451657 244279 207378 45831 36553 9278 Lalitpur 44478 36891 7587 157628 125440 32188 27281 24127 3154 Jalaun 61343 50174 11169 332413 222399 110014 37766 32203 5563 Banda 78361 71574 6787 342432 183037 159395 48348 43341 5007 Hamirpur 58538 48692 9846 159570 126345 33225 36022 29735 6287 Mahoba 26694 22499 4195 203384 153668 49716 16224 14153 2071 Chitrakoot 32735 33116
-1621 129907 109229 20678 22774 20980 1794 (The bold figure shows incorrect information)
32. About losses, it is explained by saying that due to typing and clerical mistake, decimal was shown incorrectly and actual loss in 2006-07 is Rs.17.595 crores; in 2007-08 Rs.22.72688 crores; and 2008-09 it is Rs.41.96088 crores occurred due to transit loss, theft and embezzlement. He also said that losses beyond permissible limits in certain cases like storage losses are to be recovered by respective Regional Food Controllers from concerned officials as per Government Order dated 24.02.2005 (Annexure 1 to Compliance Affidavit). Certain losses, upto permissible limits, are also written off by concerned departmental officials as per the above said Government Order. The aforesaid losses were claimed to have been computed as per Decentralized Procurement Scheme which prevailed in the State upto 21.03.2010, the details whereof are not supplied.
33. In respect to petitioner in particular, Principal Secretary has said that he was not supplied any deficient quantity of foodgrains in the month of December, 2007; January and February, 2008. He also said that main allegation on which petitioner's agreement cancelled, was misappropriation/ deviation of 1660 litres of kerosene oil received by him on 23.2.2008 and also overcharging of price of essential commodities like foodgrains, sugar and kerosene oil from the card holders. The remaining datas and figures given by him in the Affidavit virtually are same as given in SCA.
34. There is another supplementary affidavit sworn on 21st May, 2012 by Sri Balvinder Kumar, Principal Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies Department, Government of U.P., Lucknow. A direction was issued to field officer on 15.5.2012 to examine genuity of card holders under various categories by random checking/verification. An earlier order to this effect was issued by Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies on 25th April, 2012. As a result thereof, in Jhansi Division, 3648 cards covering 12104 units were cancelled while in Chitrakoot Division, 5054 cards covering 23,278 units were cancelled. Orders were also issued to take action against those responsible for issuance of such bogus cards. He has also given revised figures of losses suffered under the heads 'storage', 'transportation', 'inter regional transfer' and other in respective three years i.e. 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09. The updated information about number of card holders and units covered therein at District level in Bundelkhand area is as under: District No. of CH in BPL No. of CH in AAY No. of CH in APL Total No. of units in BPL No. of Units in AAY No. of Units in APL Total Jhansi 74303 45825 450384 570512 311726 190778 1470035 1972539 Lalitpur 44469 27276 156404 228149 178649 109423 630208 918280 Jalaun 61333 37758 330927 430018 247589 152153 1264104 1663849 Banda 78345 48335 241613 368293 320209 195081 944654 1459944 Hamirpur 58531 36018 160031 254580 264811 168982 512015 945808 Mahoba 26689 16221 200026 242936 127069 66445 657788 851302 Chitrakoot 37230 22772 129907 189909 152217 95659 502995 750871
35. Now remains one more affidavit titled as "Supplementary Affidavit of Compliance" dated 14.5.2012 in which the statement contained in "Compliance Affidavit" are basically repeated but the additional information provided is about the cards found bogus or invalid. Since 2006-07 the respondents found 9,03,489 cards bogus and have cancelled them. Besides, since 2007-07; 8493 FIRs were lodged, 3871 persons were arrested, 41223 FPS suspended, 19785 shops cancelled, Rs.1580.11 lacs forfeited from security amount and goods worth Rs.10027 lacs seized in favour of State. The data supplied vide affidavit sworn on 21st May, 2012 contained information as on May, 2012. Interestingly, no information has been made available about the action taken against responsible officials, if any, and whether they have been held accountable in any manner or not.
36. The Court can take judicial notice of the fact that Government of India has published census figures of 2011. Census information in respect to 7 districts of Bundelkhand area of this State has also been published. The number of families in seven districts if are examined in the light of census figures of 2011, it would give a better and broad comparative idea.
37. Considering census figure of seven districts and the information supplied as noticed above, the position emerges in respect to seven districts as under :- District Population Ration Cards Units Persons Left % of CH Monthly demand of wheat Monthly demand of rice (in M.T.) Annual Demand of wheat (in M.T.) Annual Demand of rice (in M.T.) Jhansi 2000755 570512 1972539 28216 98.59 8557.68 11410.24 1026092.16 136922.88 Hamirpur 1104021 204772 945808 158213 85.67 3071.58 4095.44 36858.96 49145.28 Mahoba 876055 242936 851302 24753 97.17 3644.04 4858.72 43728.48 58304.64 Jalaun 1670718 430018 1663849 6869 99.59 6450.27 8600.36 77403.24 103204.32 Lalitpur 1218002 228149 918280 299722 75.39 3422.24 4562.98 41066.82 54755.76 Banda 1799541 368293 1459944 339597 81.13 5524.4 7365.86 66292.74 88390.32 Chitrakoot 990626 189909 750871 239755 75.8 2848.64 3798.18 34183.62 45578.16 (CH=Card Holders)
38. Though, in their own way, respondents claimed to have complied Court's order regarding informations, as directed, but I find, on several aspects, respondents have maintained conspicuous silence for the reasons best known to them. No information whatsoever or a vague statement has been given without showing actual details. The information, which has not been supplied though directed vide para 16 of the order dated 4.11.2011, are: i. The quantum of money assigned for the various schemes under PDS. ii. The number of people covered under the Scheme(s) in the country, State and Bundelkhand is self contradictory at different places. iii. Information regarding number of dealers Village Panchayat-wise, number of units they cater, quantity of foodgrains supplied monthly for regular distribution and in special situation like draught, flood etc. iv. Criminal action against the official(s), if any, found responsible for suicide or otherwise death of agricultural persons. v. The quantum of foodgrains purchased from FCI or other agency annually in the last five years, distributed under various schemes, destroyed, spoiled or damaged for various reasons.
39. Be that as it may, since the matter cannot be kept pending for indefinite period, this Court has to proceed on whatever information disclosed by the respondents.
40. The PDS, undoubtedly, involves, stakes of very high magnitude since almost 90 per cent of people in this State is said to be covered by it. In brief, the basic information analysis is like this: a. APL Scheme had 3.25 crores, BPL had 65.845 lacs and AAY had 40.945 lacs ration cards. If a family consists of four persons on an average, it would cover 13 crores, 2.6338 crores and 1.6378 crores of people under each Scheme respectively. The total comes to about 17.25 crs.. The quantum of foodgrains and money involved in above schemes, therefore, would be : APL Item Ration Cards Quantum of foodgrains allotted (kg.) Monthly requirement (Metric Ton) Yearly requirement (Metric Ton) Rate (Rs.) Monthly amount involved (Rs.) Yearly amount involved (Rs.) Wheat 3,25,00,000 15 4,87,500 58,50,000 6.10 297.375 crores 3568.5 crores Rice 3,25,00,000 20 6,50,000 78,00,000 8.30 539.5 crores 6474.00 crores Sugar 3,25,00,000 2.8 91,000 10,92,000
-
-
-
BPL Item Ration Cards Quantum of foodgrains allotted (Kg.) Monthly requirement (Metric Ton) Yearly requirement (Metric Ton) Rate (Rs.) Monthly amount involved (Rs.) Yearly amount involved (Rs.) Wheat 65,84,500 15 kg.
98767.5 11,85,210 4.15 40.9885125 cr.
491.86215 cr.
Rice 65,84,500 20 kg.
1,31,690 15,80,280 5.65 74.40485 cr.
892.8582 cr.
Sugar 65,84,500 2.8 kg.
1,84,36.6 2,21,239.2
-
-
-
AAY Item Ration Cards Quantum of foodgrains allotted (Kg.) Monthly requirement (Metric Ton) Yearly requirement (Metric Ton) Rate (in Rs.) Monthly amount involved (Rs.) Yearly amount involved (Rs.) Wheat 40,94,500 15 61417.5 737010 2 12.2835 crores 147.402 cr.
Rice 40,94,500 20 81890 982680 3 24.567 crores 294.804 cr.
Sugar 40,94,500 2.8 11464.6 137575.2
-
-
-
41. The population of State is 19.95 crores as per Census-2011. Thus number of people covered by the three schemes comes to about 85% plus (17.25 Crs.) of the total population of the State.
42. The State Government admits that thousands of metric ton of foodgrains, wheat and rice remained undistributed to these poorest people of the State who constitute more than 85% of total population. Why it remained undistributed is not known. At least no attempt has been made to explain it. Nobody has bothered to find out whether it is on account of fictitious and bogus cards or undistributed quantity is/was siphoned off in black market or for any other reason.
43. The natural colloary of non distribution of such a huge quantity of foodgrains is that these poor people have been left to starve and die unless they may survive on account of their destiny or by God grace. The interesting aspect is that in last year i.e. 2010-11, the undistributed quantity of foodgrains to all the three categories is very high. It is also not the case of the respondents that this entire quantity of foodgrains is lying in the stock and is available for distribution in future.
44. The State has not disputed that PDS is meant to extend State's welfare obligation to the poorest people of this country to help them in their sustenance. Thus exact and appropriate distribution of foodgrains upto prescribed quantity to beneficiaries must be held a constitutional obligation of State, failing which, it would be compelling downtrodden people to die of starvation.
45. In the directive principles of the State policy, Part IV of the Constitution, Article 38 (2) provides that State shall strive to minimise the inequalities in income, and endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities amongst groups of people residing in different areas or engaged in different vocations. Article 47 provides that the State shall regard raising of level of nutrition and standard of living of its people and improvement of public health as among its primary duties.
46. In case the State do not provide required quantity of foodgrains to the needy people, who are identified as poorest person in the State, it would be failing its obligations, objective and goal enshrined in the Constitution. It is true that directive principles are not enforcible as such but when the State has earmarked a scheme for such purpose, has allocated a hefty budget taking money from the hard earned tax payers' contribution, it is under a bounden constitutional obligation to ensure that the said benefit reaches the lowest person and to every one, up to the extent it has been provided for him/them, without being filtered in the hands of officials or other middlemen.
47. This is besides the fact that prescribed quantity under the aforesaid schemes is insufficient to meet two times meals requirement of these persons. It fills their belly only partially but even this quantity of foodgrains, if not distributed, it would be very shameful for the State to claim of working for welfare of these little tiny Indians who are struggling all the 24 hours for their bare survival, what to say of betterment of life, yet in vain.
48. It is more painful that, very boldly, State has disclosed of not distributing such a huge quantity of foodgrains under these schemes. As a matter of fact, there is no feeling of guilt or accountability. It does not appear that anybody has ever cared to find out why such a huge quantity of foodgrains, though actually allotted under the above schemes, yet has not reached the needy ones. Further, where such undistributed quantity of foodgrains has gone? It appears that respondents felt satisfied by simply providing scheme on paper, involving huge amount of public exchequer without caring for its effective and honest execution.
49. The people's representatives, who care very minutely for their individual perks and privilege, had not raised voice nor attempted to know as to why and in what circumstances huge quantity of foodgrains has remained undistributed to the beneficiaries, who is responsible for the same and what action has been taken by the responsible authorities.
50. The Court can take judicial notice of the statement made by certain people holding high offices that one rupee given for benefit of poor results in reaching only 15-20 paise to him or may be less than that. Knowing this fact, it is also surprising why no attempt has been made to find out where this money, which has not reached the beneficiaries, has gone. The Court finds that in respect to only wheat and rice, total amount involved in the three categories of the schemes would involve a huge sum of Rs.11869.426 crores per annum, as is evident from para 38(a) above of this judgment. If substantial quantity of foodgrains is not reaching the beneficiaries, the quantum of money siphoned off from public exchequer would also run in hundreds and thousands of crores. The conspicuous silence on this aspect on the part of respondents is shocking and troubling.
51. Moreover, the foodgrains being perishable item, and their storage/shelf life is short. One can easily understand that officials responsible for its storage can always provide an excuse of damage by decay, natural calamities, other external factors like rodent etc. and there would not be any method of counter check and verification.
52. In various affidavits filed by respondents, an evasive attempt has been made to say that there are several reasons for losses etc. and different provisions have been made for accounting but it does not appear that respondents, at any point of time, have taken care for proper auditing and accounting of such losses. They have not bothered to find out reasons therefor so that leakage points may be plugged and beneficiaries may actually get whatever is due to them.
53. The laxity or intention not to plug holes justifies an inference of a tacit approval and collusion for such siphoning of public exchequer. The honest intention, determination and will for proper execution of scheme for larger benefit of beneficiaries is clearly wanting. The reason may be many. But the consequence is vapouring of foodgrains from the point of allocation to actual distribution, causing loss to the huge funds.
54. Moreover, from the above information supplied, as also revised one, figures in respect to actual demand, supply and deficiency of foodgrains in respective three categories in seven districts of Bundelkhand area come as under:- Wheat District BPL Actual Demand (In MT) Actual Supply (In MT) Deficiency, if any
-do-
-do-
-do-
AAY APL
-do-
-do-
-do-
Jhansi BPL 1114.650 1114.650 NIL AAY 687.465 687.465 NIL APL 4516.570 1993.716 2522.854 Lalitpur BPL 667.170 667.170 NIL AAY 409.215 409.215 NIL APL 1576.280 313.310 1262.970 Jalaun BPL 920.145 920.145 NIL AAY 566.490 566.490 NIL APL 3320.330 920.145 2400.185 Banda BPL 1175.415 1073.610 101.805 AAY 725.220 650.100 75.120 APL 2424.320 387.514 2036.806 Hamirpur BPL 878.070 730.380 147.690 AAY 540.330 446.025 94.305 APL 1606.170 568.225 1037.945 Mahoba BPL 340.410 337.485 2.925 AAY 243.360 212.295 31.065 APL 2033.550 635.190 1398.360 Chitrakoot BPL 558.525 496.740 61.785 AAY 341.610 314.700 26.910 APL 1301.720 491.531 810.189 Rice District BPL Actual Demand (In MT) Actual Supply (In MT) Deficiency, if any (In MT)
- do -
- do -
- do -
AAY APL
- do -
- do -
- do -
Jhansi BPL 1486.200 1486.200 NIL AAY 916.620 916.620 NIL APL
-
-
-
Lalitpur BPL 889.560 889.560 NIL AAY 545.620 454.620 91.000 APL
-
-
-
Jalaun BPL 1226.860 1226.860 NIL AAY 755.320 755.320 NIL APL
-
-
-
Banda BPL 1567.229 1431.380 135.840 AAY 966.960 866.820 100.140 APL
-1170.760
-
-
Hamirpur BPL 1170.760 973.840 196.920 AAY 720.440 594.700 125.740 APL
-
-
-
Mahoba BPL 453.880 449.980 3.900 AAY 324.480 283.060 41.420 APL
-
-
-
Chitrakoot BPL 744.700 662.320 82.380 AAY 455.480 419.600 35.880 APL
-
-
-
55. In the above charts, the Court finds that under many heads information either has not been supplied or it is the result of lack of non-compilation of record regarding foodgrains.
56. The mockery of system is writ large from the fact that in Banda, against the actual demand of wheat in APL being 2424.320 M.T., the deficiency i.e., non distribution of wheat is 2036.806. Meaning thereby, almost 90% of wheat in the category of APL remained undistributed or unsupplied. Similarly, in Jhansi, against actual demand of wheat under APL category being 4516.570, non supply/non distribution comes to 2522.854 M.T. i.e. about 52% and more. In Lalitpur also in the APL category, actual demand of wheat is 1576.280 M.T. while deficiency/non distribution is 1262.970 M.T. Similar is the position in Hamirpur, Mahoba and Chitrakoot.
57. Not only this, in Banda, in BPL and AAY category also, the quantum of deficiency/non distribution of wheat is almost to the extent of 10%. In Hamirpur, deficiency/non distribution of wheat in BPL and AAY category is almost 20%. This situation is alarming and highly unsatisfactory.
58. There cannot be any doubt that above situation is the result of apathetic attitude of concerned officials. It may be due to inaction or a positive action with the colour of corruption. All these require proper investigation and enquiry since it is not a one time measure but a regular feature. A huge amount of tax payers' hard earned money is being consumed in the name of subsidies for poor people under PDS but thousands of crores of rupees are being siphoned off or allowed to be wasted almost every year in one State. What would be position elsewhere can be conceived easily and need not be written in words. This is the high time when the Government must wake up from slumber and go for effective and concrete action to take PDS in right direction.
59. A very interesting feature has come out. The above figures show that State of U.P. and its authorities do not take the task of preparation of record honestly, correctly and extensively so as to give a correct picture. Here, every time, different version comes. For example, while giving details of distribution of ration cards in rural and urban areas, they have mentioned total number of ration cards in district Chitrakoot as 32,735 but only in Rural areas the figures is 33,116 which is more than total number of urban and rural cards. This is apparently misleading inasmuch as, number of rural cards are more than number of gross total cards given in respect to rural and urban for the District Chitrakoot which is improbable. Similarly, almost entire population of District Jhansi is covered by ration cards and leaves only 28216 people, while a small but most backward district Lalitpur, which has much less population than Jhansi, has 24% and odd people without cards. The number of ration cards allocated therein are 75.39 per cent i.e. almost one-forth of the population in District Lalitpur is not eligible for issuance of ration cards. This discrepancy has not been explained nor is otherwise understandable. The deficiency in supply of wheat and rice in Antyodaya and BPL scheme in Chitrakoot, Mahoba, Hamirpur, Banda is beyond comprehension. In Banda, deficiency in supply is almost 10 per cent of the total requirement, for wheat and rice both. In Lalitpur, deficiency in supply of rice in Antyodaya scheme is almost 20%.
60. This Court is not elaborating on APL scheme and the deficiency of supply therein, though it is admitted by State that considerable number of BPL families on account of target fixed by Government of India have been placed in the category of APL and they may also be directly hit due to non distribution. It is not the case of respondents that procurement of food grains is less than the required quantity or its allocation or supply by Central agencies.
61. Even quantity of foodgrains supplied by respondents, per capita to the poorest of poor people, as above, is extremely deficient. For a labour class person i.e. a person doing hard physical work, normal food requirement is about 400-450 gms. per meal. In the present case, quantity determined per family is 15 kgs. of wheat and 20 kgs. of rice. The chart in para 24 above, demonstrate that each family, in all the districts, consist of more than four persons, on an average. For precision of calculation, I give advantage to the State and take average number of units per family as "four" and number of days in a month as "30" ignoring those five months in which number of days are "31". Thus the availability of wheat per member of family per month would be 3.75 kgs. i.e. 125 gms. of wheat per day. One can easily understand that for a single meal only 62.5 gms. of wheat per member in a family is the prescribed level fixed by the State which would be available to them if prescribed quantity of wheat in its entirety is actually supplied to them.
62. Similarly, with regard to rice, 20 kgs. per family is the prescribed quantity which would mean 5 kgs. of rice for 30 days to each member of family. It means 166.67 gms. per day per person i.e. about 83.33 gms per meal.
63. If total of rice and wheat, as discussed above, is taken for each member of family, it comes to 125 gms of wheat and 166 gms. rice i.e. 291.67 gms. per day. It is less than the normal requirement of a person doing hard physical work, even for a single meal. The State, apparently, therefore, is not providing even minimum/normal requisite quantity of foodgrains to, admittedly the poorest people of the State. Their misery is added by not supplying even this quantity actually. The result is obvious. If one would not be dying immediately by committing suicide, the result would be the same on account of starvation and hunger.
64. How the policy makers could have prescribed the above quantity, is not understandable. Apparently, if it has been determined sitting in a closed air-conditioned room, far from ground realities, without understanding real necessities; if not a complete apathy, certainly it demonstrates lack of desired compassion, a humane and reasonable approach on the part of policy makers.
65. Besides, huge quantity of foodgrains is being allowed to be wasted every year in various ways but nobody has cared seriously to think about the ground level realities and reasons for starvation of these poorest people. No efforts are being made to protect the people by meaningful use of available stock so as to avoid its damage and loss also.
66. Though sugar is being supplied, as stated, 700 gms. per unit per family meaning thereby 23.33 gms per day but apparently even this quantity is extremely deficient and wanting. This Court also finds it disturbing and unconvincing.
67. Next comes the determination of income criteria to place the people in BPL and APL category. As per the affidavit filed by Principal Secretary (Food and Civil Supply), it is Rs.25,546 per annum per family in urban area and Rs.19,884/- per annum per family in rural area. Less than above would come in the category of BPL but higher income will entitle them to be placed in APL i.e. above poverty line.
68. Again taking average family of "four", the above income criteria brings a family in urban area earning about and upto Rs.70.96/- per day; and Rs.55.23 per day in rural area would qualify for BPL but income higher than that would elevate its level to APL.
69. Here it is not per capita income but per family of four. Meaning thereby four persons are supposed to be fed with a meagre amount of about Rs.70/- and less per day if living in urban area and Rs.55.23 and less if living in rural area. Those earning Rs.71 and above in urban area and Rs.56 and above in rural area are above poverty line.
70. Considering rate of inflation, price index and all other things, it is really beyond comprehension that a family of four can survive either in rural area or urban area with an income of Rs.70/- and less; or 55/- and less. The criteria for determining BPL is not founded on objective considerations, ground level realities, the actual market forces, available and applicable, and conditions of living of the people. It appears that sitting in cosy and luxury conference rooms, the people having no idea at all about rural and urban life of poor people, have simply made paper work for all the criterion, which is far away from truth and does not depict realities. The figures, for them are mere data and not a living perception.
71. Moreover, it is really surprising when foodgrains were to be supplied to the draught affected persons etc., instead of making available adequate quantity thereof, respondents authorities supplied lessor quantity to the affected persons and no reason has been assigned as to why adequate quantity of food grains could not be supplied so as to be distributed to affected persons. The people residing in Bundelkhand area of which District Chitrakoot is a part are affected by such kind of natural calamities for last several years. For poverty and other reasons, sometimes attributable to the nature and sometimes owing to lack of welfare activities extended to this area, a lot of people in this area have been reported to kill themselves.
72. Due to frequent drought and other natural calamities as also non-availability of development plans to the down-trodden area, the agricultural Rural masses are facing acute scarcity of funds to meet their needs. In order to sustain themselves and their families, the farmers resort to debts and loans from Government & Semi Government bodies, Banks as well as private agencies. Being unable to repay the same, they face atrocious recovery steps resorted by such moneylenders including the bodies like Nationalized Bank etc. leaving little option to them but to commit suicide.
73. Besides non-distribution of adequate quantity of foodgrains at the price within the capacity of these persons, who are farmers and other agricultural masses in the said area, most of them face starving conditions. This has resulted in several starvation deaths also.
74. Be that as it may, the Court also finds that there is no accountability and proper auditing of foodgrains purchased by State in the name of supply to the poor people. Actual allocation, supply and what reaches them, nobody has cared for proper accounting and reconciliation of respective figures. A total adhocism is going on, giving upper hand to unscrupulous people to steal away and syphoning of the food of the poorest people of this State. Technically, it may not satisfy requirement of criminal offence of "homicide" but in effect it is not less than that. If one snatches bread from an extremely hungry and starving person, it is nothing but to make him die of hunger.
75. While dealing with the matters like action against fair price dealers, this court has occasion to find a number of cases in which such complaint was made by dealers that they could not supply requisite quantity of foodgrains to cardholders due to non allotment/distribution of sufficient quantity by State authorities to them. Many a times these facts have been admitted and in the connected writ petition No.19070 of 2012 (Dharmendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.), which was decided by this Court on 28.5.2012, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel admitted of short supply and also admitted fault on the part of authorities in cancelling fair price shop agreement of the dealer though he was not at fault.
76. All this go to support a huge racket in the system. The cards have been issued indiscreetly, without looking whether the same have been issued to those who are entitled or not; the quantity of foodgrains required has been sought to be obtained at exaggerated level from Central agencies so as to justify allocation of huge budget but then there is a concerted effort to take out respective share therefrom either by non distribution of foodgrains or by showing huge quantity as damaged, for one or the other reason and by not allowing proper and appropriate auditing and accounting.
77. Wastage of foodgrains in the country, where 75 to 90 per cent of people constitute the categories who need State support of subsidized foodgrains for their sustenance, would be a serious matter. It also offends human rights where foodgrains are being allowed to be wasted instead of distributing to needy people. These lapses are encouraging and causing suicides and starvation death. Those responsible for creating such a situation, if not guilty of culpable homicide, yet must be responsible for abetement of homicide. Such people deserve to be proceeded against with all kinds of action, civil, criminal or departmental, as the case may be.
78. In my view, this is a crime against society and more abhorring than the offence of homicide, which should be made punishable by law in most strictest manner. Time has come when we should provide effective and real sustenance to the deprived instead of simply discussing things in air conditioned room or on public platforms. It is time to act instead of speech.
79. Now coming back to the facts of this particular case, I find that charge No.3 levelled against the petitioner states that he has distributed lessor foodgrains to the cardholders. The explanation submitted by him was that foodgrains supplied to him was less than the requisite quantity, hence, he has no option but to distribute proportionately to the cardholders. The petitioner's allegation of lessor quantity of foodgrains made available to him have not been disputed anywhere. On the contrary, in the affidavit, an attempt has been made to say that charge No.3 has not been relied for passing the impugned order but in the appellate order, Deputy Commissioner has taken view that agreement has rightly been cancelled since petitioner did not distribute essential commodities to the cardholders up to the requisite quantity. The Appellate Authority, therefore, has taken charge no.3 to be a valid ground for upholding cancellation of fair price shop agreement though Cancelling Authority i.e. Deputy Collector having found petitioner's explanation in respect to charge No.3 correct, has not referred the same. So far as charges No.1 and 2 are concerned, petitioner has filed affidavits of alleged complainants but no attempt has been made by authorities below to find out whether those statements/affidavits of cardholders were genuine or not and without looking into this aspect of the matter, they have simply proceeded to uphold cancellation. Even a discussion is absent. This approach of respondents cannot be sustained and upheld. In my view, it is clearly arbitrary, illegal and suffers the vice of non application of mind.
80. So far as another aspect is concerned that the petitioner did not hand over kerosene oil to the dealer with whom cardholders were attached after suspension of petitioner's fair price agreement, this Court finds that firstly; this was not a charge levelled against petitioner on which he was required to submit explanation by Cancelling Authority and, secondly; petitioner's explanation submitted before Appellate Authority on the aspect that dealer declined to purchase kerosene oil after making payment to petitioner, has not been found false or incorrect. Moreover, consideration of this aspect by the two authorities, which was not part of charges levelled against petitioner on which he was supposed to reply, vitiates the impugned orders, inasmuch as, allegation to which petitioner was never confronted, cannot be made basis for passing impugned orders. Before this Court also, only this aspect has been highlighted though on this aspect, petitioner was never required to submit his explanation. The Cancelling Authority has mentioned this allegation for the first time in cancellation order and when petitioner explained it before Appellate Authority, unfortunately the Appellate Authority has failed to look into his explanation at all.
81. In the above facts and circumstances, in my view, this writ petition deserves to be allowed. The impugned orders cannot sustain.
82. The writ petition, therefore, is allowed with the following directions: i. The impugned orders dated 26.07.2008 and 30.07.2009 (Annexures No.1 and 3 to the writ petition) passed by respondents No.2 and 1 respectively are hereby quashed. ii. Chief Secretary, U.P. Government, shall constitute a High Powered Committee, which shall consist of a Senior Police Officer and Judicial Officer, (Member of Higher Judicial Service) as also a Member from the office of CAG (nominated by CAG), not below the rank of Deputy/Joint AG to look into the reasons for non supply of allocated foodgrains to the dealers/consumers and what happened to undistributed quantity of foodgrains in the preceding 10 years. iii. The above Committee (as in ii) shall also get a proper accounting/auditing of foodgrains, made available from various resources i.e. actually supplied, loss, and how and in what manner losses have occurred, and made good, if any, by or from the responsible persons, or otherwise, in the last 10 years i.e. from 1.1.2001 till 31st March, 2011. iv. Same kind of investigation/accounting shall be followed for the subsequent period also i.e. post 31.3.2011. v. If for non supply of requisite quantity of foodgrains or loss etc., responsibility is fixed upon certain officials, appropriate civil and criminal as well as departmental action would also be taken, without any further delay, else responsible disciplinary authorities would be deemed to be in collusion with such official(s). vi. The petitioner shall be entitled to cost which is quantified to Rs.25,000/-. The amount of cost shall be paid at the first instance by respondent no.3 but it shall have liberty to recover the said amount from the official(s) concerned found responsible for acting in such a reckless and mindless manner forcing an avoidable litigation upon the petitioner. A report taking action and its result would be submitted to this Court within six months and only for perusal of the report this case shall be listed on 18.3.2013 under the heading "Compliance Report". For all other purposes, the writ petition stand decided as allowed with the above direction. Order date: 12.09.2012 PS/KA/Akn