Polmonsing A. Sangma And Ors vs State Of Meghalaya & Ors

This order shall disposed of WP(C) Nos. 222 and 223 of 2019 as learned counsel for the parties submitted that the facts raised in both the petitions are identical though it relates to different allotment of PDS at two different places. The facts are being extracted from WP(C) No. 222 of 2019.

WP(C) No. 222 of 2019 has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order No. SUP.4/2017/Pt.XIII/ DGR/734 dated 30.05.2019 passed by the appellant authority i.e., the Additional Chief Secretary, Food & Civil Supplies and Consumer Department, Govt. of Meghalaya whereby, the appeal filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 28.01.2019 issued by the State Government and notification dated 28.02.2019 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Supply), Dadenggre Civil Sub-Division, West Garo Hills was dismissed.

Briefly, the facts may be noticed. The petitioner was appointed as Government Nominee/Agent in Public Distribution System (PDS) of Damal Asim Centre by the Director of Food Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Meghalaya vide orders dated 20.02.2000 and his appointment was renewed/re-appointed successively till the year 2018. An advertisement was issued by the State Government on 26.10.2018 inviting applications from eligible applicants for appointment as Government Nominees/Agents in PDS for the year 2019 in the Centers under Dadenggre Civil Sub-Division. The petitioner submitted his application on 14.11.2018 along with all documents as required in the advertisement. There were other applicants as well. However, the State after considering the comparative merit of all the applicants and scrutinizing the documents, allotted the PDS of Damal Asim Centre under Dadenggre Civil Sub-Division to respondent No. 7 on 28.01.2019. The petitioner feeling aggrieved of the allotment in favour of respondent No. 7 had challenged the said order before the appellate authority and the appeal was dismissed. As noticed, earlier the impugned order dated 28.01.2019 as well as impugned order passed by the appellate authority dated 30.05.2019 have been impugned in the writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, relied upon advertisement dated 26.10.2018 (Annexure-2) and submitted that respondent No. 7 did not fulfil the following conditions:-

"11. Applicant should attach photos of storage Godowns of their proposed Centre along with the application, failing which the application shall be summarily rejected.

Preference will be given to the applicants who have basic knowledge of Information Technology (IT) hardware and internet connectivity to update the stock of foodgrains online on a regular basis and supporting documents, testimonials need to be submitted along with the application.

The appointed Wholesalers shall have to engage 1 (one) Data Entry Operator (DEO) for maintenance of stocks/distribution updated online on daily basis."

It was urged that in the absence of fulfilment of the aforesaid requirements by respondent No. 7, the allotment of PDS under Dadenggre Civil Sub-Division for Damal Asim Centre was bad.

Upon notice having been issued, an affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of the respondents No. 1 to 6 has been filed. Respondent No. 7 has not appeared despite service of notice.

In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents No. 1 to 6, it has been categorically stated that due procedure has been followed by the answering respondent for the appointment of Government Nominees to run the Dealership (PDS). It has been further stated that the applications received were duly scrutinized and on inspection of the site/location/godown, installation of computer and internet facility etc., the recommendation was made. According to respondents No. 1 to 6, the newly appointed Government Nominee i.e., respondent No. 7 fulfils all the essential criteria as required under the PDS order of 2004 and he had submitted his application along with supporting testimonials and photographs of the godown facilities and the same were also physically verified by the Superintendent of Supply, Dadenggre. Para 6 of the affidavit-in-opposition which is relevant reads thus;

"6. That in reply to the averments made in paragraph 5 of the writ petition, the answering respondent states that due procedure have been followed by the answering respondent for the appointment of Government Nominees to run the Dealership (PDS). All the applications received were duly scrutinized and on inspection of the sit/location/godown, installation of computer and internet facility etc., that recommendation was made. The newly appointed Government Nominees i.e., the Respondent No. 7 having fulfilled all the essential criteria as required under the PDS order of 2004 had submitted his application along with supporting testimonials and photographs of the godown having adequate storage space with computerized godown facilities. The same was physically verified by the Superintendent of Supply, Dadenggre. In this regard, the State Government vide letter dated 28.01.2019 (Annexure 4 of the writ petition), approved the appointment of Government nominees in PDS, Dadenggre Sadar Sub-Division for the year 2019. By virtue of this said Government approval, the notification dated 28.02.2019 (Annexure 5 of the writ petition) was issued."

In view of the above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the allotment of PDS under Dadenggre Civil Sub-Division. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed.