KAMLESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS
LAWS(ALL)-2009-7-218
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on July 03,2009

KAMLESH KUMAR Appellant
VERSUS
State of U.P. and others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

S.P.MEHROTRA, J. - (1.)THE petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying for quashing the Order dated 7.8.2006 (Annexure-9 to the Writ Petition) passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Food), Kanpur Division, Kanpur (respondent No. 2) and the Order dated 29.4.2006 (Annexure-4 to the Writ Petition) passed by the Deputy Collector, Jaswant Nagar, District Etawah (respondent No. 4).
(2.)IT appears that the petitioner was licensee of the fair price shop in question in village-Bhattpura, Gram Panchayat Biyari Bhattpura. On the basis of complaint received regarding the alleged irregularities in the distribution of the essential commodities by the petitioner, an inspection of the fair price shop in question was made by the Deputy Collector, Jaswant Nagar, District Etawah alongwith the Regional Supply Inspector at 9.40 a.m. on 4.4.2006. As a consequence of the said Inspection, an Order-cum-Notice dated 4.4.2006 was issued by the Deputy Collector, Jaswant Nagar, District Etawah whereby the licence of the petitioner in respect of the fair price shop in question was suspended, and the petitioner was directed to submit within a week his written explanation alongwith evidence in respect of the charges mentioned in the said Order-cum-Notice dated 4.4.2006, and also submit the stock and distribution register for the last three months in regard to all the schemes (Yojanas) in respect of the fair price shop in question.
It was, inter alia, stated in the said Order-cum-Notice dated 4.4.2006 that at the time of inspection on 4.4.2006, the fair price shop in question was found closed, and the notice-board was not found exhibited outside the shop nor was the stock and rate board found to be filled in; and that the petitioner was sent for, whereupon the petitioner came and opened the fair price shop in question for inspection.

(3.)IT was, inter alia, further stated in the said Order-cum-Notice dated 4.4.2006 that as per the stock register produced by the petitioner at the time of inspection, the petitioner had lifted on 28.2.2006, 9.00 quintal wheat and 12.00 quintal rice under Antyodaya Ann Yojana in respect of the monthly quota for March 2006, and the petitioner had lifted on 27.3.2006 in respect of the monthly quota for April 2006,21.90 quintal wheat and 29.20 quintal rice under B.P.L. Yojana, 9.00 quintal wheat, 12.00 quintal rice and 6.15 quintal sugar under Antyodaya Ann Yojana, and 1.89 quintal wheat and 3.78 quintal rice under Mid-Day-Meal Yojana; and that as per the stock register, the distribution of food-grains and sugar lifted for the said two months was not shown in the stock register, and thus, as per the stock register, about 197 bags of food-grains (wheat and rice) and 12 bags 15 kg. sugar should have been available in the stock in the fair price shop in question, but on physical verification of food-grains and sugar, total 95 bags of food-grains (wheat and rice) and bags of sugar were found in the stock on the spot; and that thus, total 102 bags of food-grains (wheat and rice) and 3 bags 15 kg. of sugar were found to be deficient in the stock of the petitioner in the fair price shop in question; and that the weights and weighing balance in the fair price shop in question were not found to be verified for the relevant period by the Weights and Measures Department; and that the prescribed conical litre for measuring kerosene oil was not found in the fair price shop in question, and in its place the petitioner showed a litre-measure without handle on which no verification seal of the Weights and Measures Department was found affixed which showed that while distributing the kerosene oil the petitioner must have been giving less quantity to the cardholders.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.