Raijibhai Dhiraji Damor vs District Supply Officer and Others

J.B. Pardiwala, J.—In this appeal, the Appellant-original Petitioner seeks to challenge the legality, validity and propriety of judgment and order dated 08.10.2009 passed by learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 9618 of 2009, whereby learned Single Judge rejected the petition confirming the orders passed by Respondent No. 3, Joint Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies, cancelling the license of the Appellant to run fair price shop.

Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal can be summarized as under:

2.1 Appellant-original Petitioner, who is physically handicapped, was running a fair price shop. On 15.06.2006 and 26.06.2007, there was an inspection of his shop and on conclusion of the said inspection, two show-cause notices were issued, as many irregularities were noticed by the authorities during the course of inspection. In the first show-cause notice, the Appellant was called upon to explain and show cause as to why stock worth Rs. 7,470/-, seized from the shop, should not be confiscated. The Appellant was also served with second show cause notice calling upon him to explain as to why his license should not be cancelled and the amount of deposit should not be forfeited.

2.2 The irregularities, which were noticed by the authorities during the course of inspection, can be summarized as under:

(i) On 15.06.2007, the Appellant had kept his fair price shop close up to 17.30 hours for which, no permission was obtained from the competent authority. Since the shop was kept close, the Appellant was informed by a messenger to remain present before the concerned authorities with the records, but the Appellant failed to remain present with the records.

(ii) The public distribution stock needs to be kept in a close building at safe place. However, the Appellant had kept all the records in an open shed in the building. Instead of keeping the records at the place of business, the same were kept at the place of Appellant''s residence.

(iii) Other than the place of business, the records were seized from the residence of the Appellant at Khetawada, and on examining the records, it was found that after 19.05.2007, there was no entry of the stock in the sales statement. Thereby, the Appellant failed to maintain the correct accounts day to day.

(iv) On inspection of the records of the fair price shop, it was found that there was excess of 137 kg wheat, deficit of 1086 kg of rice and deficit of 34 kg of sugar, whereas during the month of June, 2007, BPL wheat, rice were not sold. In spite of this, there was deficit. The deficit was also much more than the specified limit. Thereby, the Appellant disposed of the rice and sugar to other than the card holders and directly disposed of by indulging in black marketing. Further, the excess wheat, which was found, was not sold to the card holders and bogus bills were prepared.

(v) Appellant had maintained kerosene sales statement up to 26.04.2007. Thereafter, the sales statement was not maintained. In the month of May 2007, the allotment of kerosene was 1870 ltrs. The last bill for kerosene issued is No. 518 dated 25.05.2007. As per the bill book, in the month of May 2007, 1221 ltrs of kerosene was sold. Balance 649 ltrs of kerosene bills were not prepared and the entire consignment was disposed of to persons other than the card holders directly by black marketing.

(vi) On examining the bill book maintained by the Appellant, the bills were not prepared in legible handwriting and in none of the bills, dates were stated. Therefore, on which particular date, how much quantity of stock was distributed could not be ascertained.

(vii) The bill numbers were not recorded in the sales statement. Apart from that, the bills in the sale book were not found to be legible and the types of stock and the quantity including the value could not be read. In the cards, issued to the card holders, the details of the stock distributed was also not recorded.

(viii) In the month of June 2007, vide permit No. 0048590 dated 06.06.2007, Appellant was allotted BPL wheat 1100 kg, BPL rice 500 kg, Antyoday wheat 600 kg, Antyoday rice 600 kg. Special wheat 100 kg, special rice 1050 kg, sugar 500 kg, kerosene 1875 ltr. In spite of this, the entries were not made in the stock statement.

(ix) On the reverse of the kerosene bill book i.e. behind bill No. 793 to 801, names of thirteen persons were written to show distribution of 97 ltr of kerosene. No clarification was made in this regard.

(x) On the reverse of bill No. 1165 to 1176, name of Chauhan Mahendrasinh has been written with the entry of 135 ltrs. On inquiry, the Appellant is said to have made a statement that the same entry was by mistake. However, it was suggestive of the fact that the kerosene stock was distributed to persons other than the card holders in huge quantity.

2.3 Upon noticing all these irregularities as referred to above, Respondent No. 1, District Supply Officer, Dist. Sabarkantha, passed an order dated 22.10.2007 directing confiscation of 100% stock seized from the shop of the Appellant. Respondent No. 1 also passed order dated 22.10.2007 in Departmental Case No. 84 of 2007 directing to fortify the deposit of Rs. 5000/- while restoring the license of the Appellant which was suspended.

2.4 Respondent No. 2, Collector, however, issued notice dated 03.10.2007 as to why the order passed by Respondent No. 1 restoring the license of the Appellant should not be cancelled for indulging in black marketing. Ultimately, Collector, Sabarkantha, vide order dated 27.12.2007, passed an order canceling the license and authorization of the Appellant to run the fair price shop.

2.5 Aggrieved by the said order passed by Respondent No. 2, Collector, Sabarkantha, Appellant preferred Revision Application No. 10 of 2008 before Respondent No. 3, Joint Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies Department, State of Gujarat. Respondent No. 3, vide order dated 20.09.2008, rejected the revision application confirming order dated 27.12.2007 passed by Collector, Sabarkantha.

2.6 It is at this stage that the Appellant preferred Special Civil Application No. 9618 of 2009 challenging the orders passed by Collector and the State Government.

2.7 Learned Single Judge took notice of various irregularities committed by the Appellant and came to the conclusion that the Appellant was not entitled to any relief and thereby rejected the petition.

We have heard learned advocate, Ms. K.J. Brahmbhatt appearing for the Appellant and learned AGP appearing for the State.

The only ground urged by learned advocate appearing for the Appellant is to the effect that the Appellant is a handicapped person, and the fair price shop, which he was running, was the only source of his livelihood. Learned advocate would further submit that 100% stock was already ordered to be confiscated and the deficit was also ordered to be forfeited and therefore, the license ought not to have been cancelled. Learned advocate tried to persuade us on the ground that the Appellant was busy in his own marriage at the relevant point of time and, therefore, he was unable to properly maintain the records.

We are afraid that none of contentions, as put forward by the Appellant, are tenable in law. Fair price shop is meant for people hailing from poor strata of society. With a view to provide essential commodities like wheat, rice, kerosene, the State Government issues license to run a fair price shop. A license holder if indulges in black marketing at the expense of depriving poor people of their share of essential commodities, then such a person cannot be granted any relief. Any relief granted to a person like Appellant, who is indulging in so many irregularities and illegalities, would defeat the very object of the enactment of the Essential Commodities Act.

We are of the view that learned Single Judge, after noticing various illegalities as referred to above, rightly refused to grant any relief and no error much less an error of law can be said to have been committed warranting any interference at our hands in this appeal. We find no merits in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.