Karam Bimol Singh and Others vs State of Manipur and Others

P.C. Phukan, J.—Heard Mr. A. Nilamani Singh, learned Counsel for the Petitioners. Heard also learned Government Advocate appearing for the State Respondents 1 & 2. Notice has been duly served upon the remaining private Respondents. None appears for them. I have also considered the records of the case.

By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution the Petitioners have sought to quash the impugned order of the State Government dated 12.10.92 (Annexure-A/5 to the writ petition). The Petitioners were appointed as Fair Price Shop owners/agents as per the Government order dated 27.7.90 (Annexure-A/2). The appointment was for a term of 2 years renewable for further term of shorter period. The terms & conditions No. 8 provides "the ownership will be terminated at any time for violation of any one or more of the above terms and conditions." Some of the persons who were rationing agents appointed under Memorandum dated 3.5.90 (Annexure-A/1) were not appointed as Fan-Price shop owners after the orders dated 27.7.90 (Annexure-A/2). They filed writ petitions registered as C.R. Nos. 326 to 334. A division bench of this High Court by judgment and order dated 4.9.92 directed that all the rationing agents which were not appointed as agent of Fair Price Shop may file representation to the State Government and if the representations are filed this shall be disposed of within a period of one month. Pursuant to this order of this Court, the Under Secretary to the Govt. of Manipur, FCS wrote the impugned letter dated 12.10.92 to the Director of Food & Civil Supply. This letter is quoted below:

No. 11/1/93-FCS Government of Manipur Secretariat: Food & Civil Supplies Department.

Imphal, the 12th Oct. ''92.

To The Director/FCS, Manipur.

Sub: Representation for compliance of the order/direction dated 4.1.92 of the Hon''ble Gauhati High Court in C.R. No. 318,326 to 334, 357 to 359, 372 and 441 of 1990.

Sir,

I am directed to refer to your letter No. l/495/90-DFCS/2065 dated 15.5.92 on the above subject and to convey the approval of the Govt. to the re-appointment of the former 12 Rationing Agents as Fair Price Shop Agents of Ward No. 15, 16 &17 by cancelling the existing 12 Fair Price Shop Agents shown against each of them below:

Further, except in the case of Shri K. Tomba Sharma who is to be appointed as FPS agent vice S. Shyam Sharma, FPS agent who had resigned, necessary show cause for cancellation of the existing FPS Agent mentioned above in the context of the High Court''s Orders dated 4.1.92 may be issued before Orders for appointment of the old rationing agents as FPS Agents are issued.

Yours faithfully, Sd/-. S. Sunderlal Singh, Under Secy. (FCS), Govt. of Manipur.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid letter, the Petitioners Karam Bimol Singh, Sharatkumar Singh Rajamani Singh and others who were sought to be replaced by the persons mentioned in the above letter filed this instant Civil Rule. Even though the case was adjourned several times giving the State Respondents opportunity to file counter, the State Respondents did not filed any counter. While admitting this Civil Rule, this Court by order dated 19.10.92 stayed operation of the impugned letter dated 12.10.92. By another order dated 15.3.93 the interim order was allowed to continue. By virtue of this interim order the Petitioners are still continuing as Fair Price Shop Owners/Agents.

Mr. A. Nilamani Singh, learned senior counsel for the Petitioners, submits that by the impugned letter at Annexure-A/5 the State Govt. already conveyed the approval to re-appoint 12 rationing agents as Fair Price Shop Agents by cancelling the existing Fair Price Shop Agents (the Petitioners) and at the same time directed the Director of FCS to issue notice to show cause for cancellation of the existing Fair Price Shop Agents before issuing orders for appointment of the old rationing agents as FPS Agents. It is true that when the Govt. already decided to approve the cancellation of the existing Fair Price Shop Agents, the question of issuing notice to them to show cause as to why their Fair Price Shop Agencies should not be cancelled does not arise at all. Presumably the Govt. directed the Director, FCS to issue such notice to comply with the terms and conditions No. 8 of Annexure-A/2. However, the act of deciding first to approve cancellation and then issuing notice to show cause as to why cancellation shall not be made is not compliance of terms and conditions No. 8 of Annexure-A/2. On this score alone, the State Government letter dated 12.10.92 (Annexure-A/5) is liable to be quashed and the same is quashed.

This writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.