AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Affidavit of Service filed on behalf of the petitioner be taken on record.
Mr. Smarajit Roy Chowdhury with Ms. Tanuka Basu has been engaged in this matter on behalf of the State and their appearances may be regularised by the Office of the Learned Government Pleader.
Heard the Learned Counsels for the respective parties at length.
The present Writ Petition challenges inter alia Order dated 10.08.2026 passed by the respondent No. 5 imposing penalty of Rs. 1.5 times the present economic cost for alleged deviation / siphoning of PDS communities.
The case of the petitioner is that he is running his Fair Price Shop business in accordance with law. All of a sudden on 29.05.2026 the petitioner received a Show Cause Notice invoking the provision of West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2013 which stood repealed on and from 01.08.2024 upon promulgation of the West Bengal PDS Control Order, 2024.
In response to such Show Cause Notice the petitioner filed his reply on 10.06.2026. Thereafter a notice for personal hearing was issued on 25.06.2026 fixing the date of hearing on 30.06.2026. Finally, without proper consideration of reply and without independent verification, respondent No. 5 passed the impugned order on 10.08.2026 imposing penalty of Rs. 21,24,88,979/-.
It is submitted by the petitioner that the show cause notice dated 26.05.2026 is a foundation of the proceeding. The impugned order dated 10.08.2026 traverses beyond the issues mentioned in the show cause notice, thus suffers from gross irregularities and is in excess of jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside.
That the Show Cause Notice suffers from infirmity without giving detailed reasoning including the names of the beneficiaries, period of activation qua E-Ration Card of DRC holders and material particulars with regard to alleged siphoning of food grains from the allotment of the petitioner meant for DRC holders.
That the ration cards are allotted from the department by the licencing authorities for determining the authenticity and the genuineness of the ration cards. The FPS dealers have no role to play either in issuance or activation or subsequent deviation of the DRCs. The petitioner is bereft of capacity to determine the authenticity and the genuineness of ration cards.
The impugned order has been passed without considering the reply dated 10.06.2026, without disclosing the breakup of calculation, and without supplying the enquiry report or the complaint which are the genesis and sole basis of the impugned order, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. Non compliance of the statutory conditions shall cause in mense prejudice to the public at large.
It is further submitted that the quantum of penalty reflects, pre-mediation and pre-judging on the part of the licensing authority at the juncture of issuing show cause notice itself. The Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Division bench in Abdul Hakim Vs. State of West Bengal and Others (MAT 53 of 2026 dated 17.06.2026) by relying upon paragraph Nos. 33, 36 to 39, 41 to 42, 46, 49, 51, 52, 53, wherein it has been held that:
“33.Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and adverting to the materials before us, we find certain serious infractions in the methodology adopted by the respondent-authorities.
36.Even otherwise, the essence of the show cause notice and the following allegations flow from Item-6 of the same, which mentions that no DRC holders from the list of deactivated DRCs came forward for reactivation of the DRC since long "which clearly indicates that those were not in existence".
37.Proceeding on such basis, in Item-7, it is stated that the distribution of PDS commodities shown against the various categories of "dubious" DRCs, from the date of activation of such DRCs to the month of deactivation, as per the entitlement scale of the respective distribution months, have been calculated accordingly, multiplying the quantity with the average cost of acquisition for that year.
38.Again, Item-8 mentioned that the distribution shown in the name of deactivated DRC holders was “deviation of PDS commodities" by the appellant, causing huge loss to the Government exchequer.
39.Hence, the very premise of the alleged offences of the appellant was the fact that initially active DRCs were subsequently deactivated.
41.In the present case, the appellant was merely a licence holder for a fair price shop and had no role to play either in the issuance or the activation or subsequent deactivation of the DRCs.
42.The appellant, as such, apparently acted on the DRCs produced before him at a juncture when they were active and as such cannot be blamed therefor.
46.Another important aspect of the matter is that the report itself, which is the sole of the impugned orders of the authorities, and the only basis of calculation of the penalty, was dated February 1. 2024, thus preceding the show cause notice dated May 14, 2024.
49.The impugned orders of the authorities are also vitiated for non-mention of the basis of break-up, which robbed the appellant of the opportunity to argue before the authorities as to the veracity of the same.
51.Be that as it may, in view of the report being the very premise of the impugned orders, non-supply of the same to the appellant along with the show cause notice also assume significance and definitely prejudiced the appellant seriously.
52.Thus, the 'prejudice test', contrary to what is submitted by the State, is squarely satisfied in the present case due to non-furnishing of such copy.
53.Also, in all fairness, the copy of the complaint which was the very genesis of the show cause notice also had to be given to the appellant for giving him a proper opportunity of hearing.”
The Learned Counsel appearing for the state respondents submits that the issue involved herein pertains to certain disputed questions of fact and wishes to file Affidavit in Opposition to the Writ Petition.
The Learned Counsel appearing for the state raises objection to the prayer for interim order made on behalf of the petitioner and submits that since the question of redundacy / validity of the West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2013 is still pending before the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, the question of passing of any interim order at this stage is not warranted.
The State respondents seeks to distinguish the judgment in Abdul Hakim (Supra) on facts and seeks time to obtain instructions with regard to inquiry report, stock verification, report, and the basis of break up and supply of report along with the show cause notice.
Having heard the Learned Counsel for the respective parties and upon perusing the materials available on record this Court observes as follows:
The petitioner has been able to make out a prima facie case warranting interference at this stage.
Prima facie the order dated 10.08.2026 passed by the respondent No. 5suffers from vice of arbitrariness and has been passed in excess of jurisdiction without assigning any detailed explanation qua alleged siphoning of food grains from petitioner’s allotment.
This Court also observed that the show cause notice dated 29.05.2026 being the foundation of the proceeding appear to be vague and does not disclose names of beneficiaries, the period for which ration cards were activated qua E-Ration Card, nor break up of calculation. The ration card has to be assisted by the licensing authority for determining the authenticity and the genuineness. FPS dealers have no role to play in issuance / activation / deactivation.
The methodology adopted appears to be identical to that of Abdul Hakim (Supra). The very premises of alleged offence is in fact that initially active DRC were subsequently deactivated and non-reactivation was treated as proof of non-existence.
The report which is the sole of the impugned order, only basis of calculation of penalty to the tune of Rs. 21,24,88,979/- appears to have been prepared prior to issuance of the show cause notice and was not supplied along with the show cause notice, thereby causing prejudice. Non-supply of compliant which was genesis of show cause notice also violates principles of natural justice as observed in paragraph nos. 53 of Abdul Hakim (Supra).
The impugned order is vitiated for non-mention of basis and break up, which robbed the petitioner of opportunity to argue as to its veracity. The quantum of penalty reflects pre-mediation and pre judging at juncture of issuing the show cause notice.
Since the issue involved disputed question of facts it cannot be finally adjudicated at this stage without exchange of affidavits and perusal of original records including inquiry report, beneficiary verification, reply dated 10.06.2026, break up calculation sheet and proof of supply.
In view of such this court directs the state respondents to file Affidavit in Opposition within four weeks from date, reply thereto if any, within two weeks thereafter.
The State shall produce all original records including inquiry report, stock verification report, complaint, break up calculation sheet and proof of supply of report along with show cause notice on the next date.
In the meantime, the respondent No. 5 is restrained from giving any effect or further effect to the order dated 10.08.2026 by taking any coercive steps against the petitioner till 27th January 2027.
Let the matter be listed in the monthly list of December 2026.