AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. N.D.Chullai, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. A.Pakyntein and Mr. B.Khyriem, learned counsels on behalf of the petitioner as
well as Mr. S.Sen. Gupta, learned Addl. Sr. State counsel on behalf of the State respondents and Mr. H.Nongkhlaw, learned counsel for the
respondent No. 5.
Petitioner''s case in a nutshell is that:
That the Petitioner is the Secretary of Riangkang Service Co-operative Society Limited, Riangdo. The petitioner was a wholesale
dealer in Public Distribution System under Nongstoin Sardar Sub-Division for the year 2009, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015 and
2016. The petitioner has been performing the Wholesale dealership without any complaint whatsoever from any corner and has been
performing work as a wholesaler to the satisfaction of all concerned. While the petitioner was doing his work of distribution of
foodgrain to the satisfaction of all concerned, the petitioner was shocked to receive the letter issued vide Memo. No. Genl/M1-
6/2016/15-A issued by the Extra Assistant Commissioner, West Khasi Hills District, Nongstoin asking him to appear before the
enquiry officer SG SY Hall, Office of the Block Development Officer, Nongstoin on 02-09-2016 at 11:30 AM and to bring along
with him all materials/records relevant and connected with the case into the alleged complaint against the wholesaler Riangdo Centre.
However, the copy of the complaint has not been furnished and supplied to the petitioner and as such the petitioner was not aware of
the allegation made in the complaint against him. The petitioner in obedience to the said letter dated 23-08-2016 appeared before the
said enquiry officer. The petitioner on 02-09-2016 requested the enquiry officer to furnish him the copy of the complaint but the Extra
Assistant Commissioner, West Khasi Hills District, Nongstoin refused to furnish the copy of the complaint to the petitioner and
proceeded with the enquiry by recording the statement of the petitioner. During the course of recording of the statement of the
petitioner by the enquiry officer the petitioner has produced sale/issue register before the enquiry officer and furnished the Xerox copy
of the same to the said enquiry officer and thereafter the petitioner was never called again and only in the month of November the
petitioner received the order dated 14.11.2016 along with the copy of the enquiry report issued by the Deputy Commissioner
(Supply) West Khasi Hills District, Nongstoin asking him to submit his explanation of which the petitioner submitted his explanation
accordingly. The enquiry so conducted was exercised by an authority not empowered under the National Food Security Act, 2013.
The enquiry so exercised was de-hors the statutory requirement of Section 15 of the said Act. The petitioner strongly denied the
allegation as well as the finding of the enquiry officer. The enquiry conducted against the petitioner was made in blatant violation of the
principle of natural justice and fair play inasmuch the petitioner was not accorded an opportunity of being heard.
That for the month of March 2016, the petitioner had made a deposit of Rs. 5,02,233/- (Five lakhs two thousand two hundred and
thirty three) only with the Deputy Commissioner (Supply) West Khasi Hills District, Nongstoin for the monthly allotment of rice in
quintals under NFSA, 2013 and Non-NFSA for March 2016 quota. However, the said quota could not be lifted by some of the
wholesalers for the reason not known to the petitioner. This security deposit made by the petitioner is required to be refunded to the
petitioner. It may be mentioned herein that the authorities till date had not released the transportation charges of the petitioner for
transportation of the food grains for the year 2010-2011 from Changsiri FCI godown Assam via Guwahati, Shillong, Riangdo and
also for the year 2016 for transportation of food grains from Nongstoin to Riangdo. Therefore, the respondent authorities are liable to
be directed to release the security deposit of Rs. 5,02,233/- (Five lakhs two thousand two hundred and thirty three) only as well as
the transportation charges incurred by the petitioner for the period of 2010, 2011 and 2016.
During the pendency of the enquiry against the petitioner the Deputy Commissioner (Supply) West Khasi Hills District, Nongstoin
issued an advertisement for fresh appointment of Government nominees for the year 2017. The petitioner having fulfilled all the criteria
submitted the application however his case was not considered. The State Authorities however considered the case of the private
respondent in spite of the fact that the private respondent does not fulfil the criteria at the time of submission in terms of the
advertisement. The Joint Secretary, Food Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs vide Letter dated 29.3.2017 conveyed the approval
of the state Government to the appointment of Government nominees for the year 2017 in West Khasi Hills District and accordingly
the private respondent has been appointed as Government wholesaler for Riangdo Centre.
The petitioner being aggrieved by the report of the enquiry as well as in not considering this case for appointment as Government
nominee for Riangdo Centre has filed this Writ Petition on the grounds stated in the Writ petition.
Mr. N.D.Chullai, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a wholesale dealer of foodgrains and was supplying
foodgrains in Riangdo from 2009 to 2016 without any interference. But unfortunately, some interested party lodged a complaint with the Deputy
Commissioner, West Khasi Hills District, Nongstoin. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted against the petitioner without following any norms and
rules, the petitioner was not even supplied with the copy of the allegation nor has he taken part in the enquiry conducted by the Extra Assistant
Commissioner, Nongstoin. Learned Sr. counsel further contended that if there is any enquiry on the basis of any allegation or otherwise, it should
be transparent, clear and the person against whom any complaint has been lodged, should be given equal opportunity to represent his case; but
that has not been done in this case. Learned Sr. counsel further contended that there is a person by the name of Shri. John Willvar Nonglait against
whom an enquiry was also conducted, but thereafter, he was given the supply order. Therefore, learned Sr. counsel raised a question before this
Court about such discrimination. Learned Sr. counsel also contended that in the advertisement, there is a term and condition that an applicant
should possess the certificate issued by the Inspector, Metrological Department, Nongstoin, which the respondent No. 5 does not possess.
Besides that, he submitted that the enquiry was conducted by a person who is not competent as stated in Chapter VII of the National Food
Security Act, 2013.
Mr. S.Sen Gupta, learned Addl. State counsel submits that the power has been given to the Deputy Commissioner to conduct any enquiry by
the Government of Meghalaya. But on query, whether the Deputy Commissioner has any delegatory power; in that respect he submits that the
notification is silent and there is no rule as such.
On the other hand, Mr. H.Nongkhlaw, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 submits that there is no allegation against the respondent No. 5
and he was very efficiently performing his duties until the matter was stayed by this Court.
After hearing the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and after going through Chapter VII of the National Food
Security Act, 2013, under Section 15, it is clearly mentioned how the grievances is to be handled and to be disposed of. The contents of Chapter
VII, Section 15 of the National Food Security Act, 2013 is reproduced herein below:
CHAPTER VII
GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL MECHANISM
District Grievance Redressal Officer. -
(1) The State Government shall appoint or designate, for each district, an officer to be the District Grievance Redressal Officer for
expeditious and effective redressal of grievances of the aggrieved persons in matters relating to distribution of entitled foodgrains or
meals under Chapter II, and to enforce the entitlements under this Act.
(2) The qualifications for appointments as District Grievance Redressal Officer and its powers shall be such as may be prescribed by
the State Government.
(3) The method and terms and conditions of appointment of the District Grievance Redressal Officer shall be such as may be
prescribed by the State Government.
(4) The State Government shall provide for the salary and allowances of the district grievance redressal officer and other staff and
such other expenditure as may be considered necessary for their proper functioning.
(5) The officer referred to in sub-section (1) shall hear complaints regarding non-distribution of entitled foodgrains or meals, and
matters relating thereto, and take necessary action for their redressal in such manner and within such time as may be prescribed by
the state government.
(6) Any complainant or the officer or authority against whom any order has been passed by officer referred to in sub-section (1), who
is not satisfied with the redressal of grievance may file an appeal against such order before the State Commission.
(7) Every appeal under sub-section (6) shall be filed in such manner and within such time as may be prescribed by the State
Government.
Mr. S.Sen Gupta, learned Addl. Sr. State counsel also produced a Notification issued by the Government of Meghalaya dated 15th September,
2014. On perusal of the said Notification, it is clearly mentioned that the Governor appointed the Deputy Commissioner (Supply) of the respective
Districts to redress the grievances under Section 15 of the National Food Security Act, 2013. On further perusal of the said Notification, I could
not find anywhere that the Deputy Commissioner is given a delegatory power to delegate any officer to conduct any enquiry on any complain or
grievance. The said Notification is reproduced below for ready reference:
GOVERNMENT OF MEGHALAYA
ORDERS BY THE GOVERNORS
NOTIFICATION.
Dt. Shillong 15th September, 2014
No. Sup.35/2014/5:- In pursuance to Rule 15(1) of the National Food Security Act, 2013, the Governor of Meghalaya do hereby
appoint the Deputy Commissioner (Supply)/Sub-Divisional Officer (Supply) as District and Sub-Divisional Grievance Redressal
Officer in their respective District/sub-divisions with immediate effect and until further orders.
The Redressal Officer shall expeditiously and effectively redress the grievances of the aggrieved persons in matters relating to
distribution of entitled foodgrains or meals and to enforce the entitlements under Chapter II of the Act.
The Officer shall hear complaints regarding non-distribution of entitled foodgrains or meal, and matters relating thereto, and take
necessary action for their redressal within 30 days from the date of complaint.
Sd/- P.W.Ingty
Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Meghalaya,
Food Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs Department.
Therefore, one thing is very clear to all of us that as per the National Food Security Act, 2013, as mentioned in Chapter VII, Section 15 that the
person appointed by the State Government shall redress the grievance or complaint and he cannot delegate his power to any other officer. It is an
admitted fact by all the parties present before the Court that the enquiry has been done by one Extra Assistant Commissioner of West Khasi Hills
District, Nongstoin, who has no power to conduct such an enquiry and neither can he derive the power from the Deputy Commissioner. Therefore,
the enquiry conducted in the year 2016 is not in accordance with law and cannot sustain. We must remember that whatever we do, we should do
the same in the manner prescribed by law or otherwise not do it.
Therefore, the enquiry report forwarded vide letter dated 27-09-2016 is hereby set aside and the Government is directed to conduct a fresh
enquiry giving equal opportunity to all the parties as per provision laid down in the rules. In the meantime, let respondent No. 5 continue to supply
till the enquiry is completed so that food distribution system is not affected. Thereafter, Government should make a fresh advertisement and select
the right candidates suitable. Petitioner will have the right to participate in the advertisement and just as a similarly situated case has been
considered, petitioner''s case should also be reconsidered. Government should complete this whole exercise within one month from the date of this
order.
Before I part with this case record, it is also ordered that the security money deposited by the petitioner as well as the transportation charges
should be released in favour of the petitioner if there is no impediment otherwise.
With this observation and direction, the instant writ petitioner is allowed and stands disposed of. Interim order passed earlier is hereby
withdrawn.