Smt. Priti Bharti vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder the order dated 28.06.2016 passed by Deputy

Commissioner, District-Garhwa is under challenge by which the order passed against the cancellation of previous license has been affirmed.

The brief facts of the case of the petitioner as per the pleadings made in the writ petition is that a license to run the public distribution shop under

the Public Distribution System has been issued in favour of the petitioner being License No.49/09 dated 13.10.2009 at village Sagma, Tola Zunakiya,

Block Dhurki, District Garhwa and the petitioner is the President of Harizan Mahila Bikas and Sahayata Samuh.

The authorities have received a complaint made on behalf of the villagers that the petitioner's husband used to take money to the tune of Rs.500/- to

Rs.1,000/- from them for preparing Ration Card but has not handed over the Ration Card to them and on the aforesaid allegation the Sub-Divisional

Officer has directed the petitioner to show cause upon which the petitioner has filed response denying the allegation.

The respondents have directed to conduct an enquiry and in course of the enquiry it was found that serious irregularities have been committed by

the said licencee in not distributing the foodgrains as per the entitlement and the husband of the petitioner used to take illegal money for preparing

Ration Card.

Upon the said allegation, the license has been cancelled vide order dated 07.06.2013 (Annexure-4) against which appeal has been preferred before the

Deputy Commissioner which has been dismissed vide order dated 28.06.2016 against which the present writ petition has been filed.

The grounds urged by the petitioner in assailing the aforesaid orders are that the P.D.S. shop has been granted in favour of a group of which the

petitioner is the President and there is no specific allegation levelled against her for commission of any irregularity rather only allegation has been

levelled against her husband and even accepting that her husband has committed any irregularity, the petitioner cannot be penalized.

The other ground has been taken that the copy of the enquiry report has not been supplied.

Mr. B.B. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted by placing the stand taken by the respondent in the counter affidavit

wherein interalia it has been stated that the husband of the petitioner used to commit irregularity and also in course of enquiry it has come out that less

foodgrains were being supplied to the consumers which was contrary to their entitlement.

He further submits that the rejoinder to the said counter affidavit has been filed wherein the commission of irregularity by the husband of the petitioner

has been admitted.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of their rival submissions it is evident from the material available on record that the

license under the Public Distribution System to run the shop by a group of which the petitioner is the President, has been granted.

The villagers have made a complaint regarding the commission of irregularity and on the basis of the same, the show cause notice has been issued

which has been annexed by the petitioner in the supplementary affidavit wherefrom it is evident that the allegation of commission of irregularity has

been levelled by asking the petitioner specific reply to that effect.

The specific allegation about commission of irregularity by the husband has also been alleged therein.

The petitioner has responded to the said show cause denying the allegation upon which the competent authority has directed to conduct an enquiry

and in course of enquiry it was found that the husband of the petitioner used to take money for preparing the Ration Card and further the consumers

were being supplied less quantity of foodgrains and further the villagers were being fooled by the husband of the petitioner by taking money in the garb

of providing Ration Card and in view thereof, the Block Supply Officer has made recommendation to cancel the license, acting upon the same, the

Sub-Divisional Officer, the competent authority has cancelled the license vide order as contained in Memo No.130 dated 07.06.2013.

The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, who after hearing the petitioner and the affected parties, has declined to

interfere with the same taking into consideration the nature of the allegation.

The petitioner has emphatically argued that if the husband has committed any irregularity why the petitioner will be made to suffer.

The question herein is that the Public Distribution System is a scheme formulated by the State Government to provide foodgrains to the people

living below the poverty line for their survival by providing the same at meager rate.

The license has been granted in favour of a group and not in favour of any individual and the purpose for providing the license in favour of a group

is to avoid irregularity since it would be joint accountability of all the members of the group.

The petitioner has admitted that her husband has committed irregularity, who used to take money for preparing Ration Card and when it has been

complained of by the villagers that even after accepting the money the Ration Card has not been prepared and handed over in favour of the persons

from whom the money has been obtained by the husband of the petitioner as also on the allegation of irregularity committed by the licensee, a show

cause notice was issued levelling therein the allegations.

The petitioner, has denied the same on the ground that the said irregularity has not been committed by her, the authority has thought it serious

irregularity and this Court is also of the view that the since husband was mis-utilizing his position in the capacity of husband of the petitioner who was

the President of the group in whose favour the license had been issued to run the public distribution shop and therefore, the authority has thought it a

serious irregularity since the villagers were being fooled, therefore, in agreement with the proposed action, decided to be taken by issuing show cause.

Further it appears from the material available on record that there is allegation of black-marketing, meaning thereby, the quantity which was to be

supplied to the individual consumers for sustaining their life was being supplied in less quantity which is absolutely improper and illegal and that cannot

be said to be a simple irregularity for the reason that if less quantity would be supplied and the licensee would be allowed to commit such type

irregularity, the whole purpose of coming out with the aforesaid scheme to help the poorer section of the society would not be achieved.

This Court needs to refer here that due to such type of irregularity the poorer section of the society are not getting sufficient quantity of foodgrain

which even is causing death due to starvation.

In view of such a serious allegation, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order it is for the reason that if such type of serious

irregularity will be ignored, it will amount to give premium to such licensee to commit irregularity.

In view thereof, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.