Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1245 (RAJ)

Surya Prakash Meena v. State of Rajasthan

2014-05-28

M.N.BHANDARI

body2014
ORDER : ” Defects, if any, are waived. 2. Since common question of facts and law are involved in these writ petitions, therefore, the same are being decided by this order. 3. The petitioners were given authorization of fair price shops. The suspension order was passed against them by the impugned order and has been assailed herein. 4. Learned counsel submits that suspension order suffers from mala fide as it was passed against a particular caste members and that too selectively in four districts. The order was passed by the District Supply Officer(Vigilance) at Headquarter, whereas the competent authority for it is District Supply Officer of the district concerned. Thus, the order is in the hands of even incompetent officer. The reference of the circular issued by the respondents and enclosed along with the reply dated 21.02.2014 has also been given to show that even drive for inspection by a special team constituted by the Government could have been, if a complaint is received in writing, oral or on telephone. In the instant case, inspection was caused without complaint of any nature indicated above and otherwise only in respect of few districts leaving the entire Rajasthan. The action of the respondents to inspect the shops was selective and to settle the score against members of one caste. It is further submitted that in one day itself, large number of shops were inspected by the team, whereas to properly inspect the shops, one expects reasonable time to spend for it. It is further stated that during pendency of the writ petitions, in few cases even authorization was cancelled in a haste, though request was made to wait for outcome of the writ petition, preferred by the petitioners and show cause notice thereupon to the respondents. The authorization has been cancelled in ignorance of the statements of the witnesses and material produced by the petitioners. In the background aforesaid, the impugned order of suspension deserves to be set aside. 5. Mr. Rajendra Prasad, the learned Additional Advocate General submits that the impugned order of suspension was passed as per the provisions of law and by the competent authority for it. In the background aforesaid, the impugned order of suspension deserves to be set aside. 5. Mr. Rajendra Prasad, the learned Additional Advocate General submits that the impugned order of suspension was passed as per the provisions of law and by the competent authority for it. The reference of the notification issued by the State Government on 17.01.2012 has been given to show that the District Supply Officer posted at the Headquarter is competent to exercise powers under Clauses 8 and 9 of the Rajasthan Foodgrains and Other Essential Articles (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1976 (for short, ' the Order of 1976 ” ). Accordingly, the District Supply Officer (Vigilance) at the Headquarter was competent to pass impugned order. It is further submitted that an order was issued by the State Government on 21.02.2014 to constitute an inspection committee for compliance of the National Food Security Act, 2013 (for short, ' the Act of 2013 ” ). The said committee had inspected shops and on finding discrepancy or irregularities, made a report to the District Supply Officer(Vigilance), who thereupon passed the order of suspension. The aforesaid committee could inspect only four districts leaving others because of the notification of Parliamentary Elections, but it would cause inspection of the shops in other districts as it is an ongoing process to streamline the working of the fair price shops and to see that those to be benefited under the Act of 2013, are not deprived. 6. The petitioners are those who were found involved either in the shortcomings or irregularities, thus, the order of suspension was passed in the background aforesaid. In most of the cases, enquiry was also caused followed by the order of cancellation of authorization. Thus, virtually all the writ petitions have become infructuous because the order of cancellation has not been challenged and in view of the order of cancellation of authorization, now the suspension order does not survive rather all the writ petitions should be rendered infructuous. It is also stated that remedy lies to challenge the order of cancellation, which was passed after providing due opportunity of hearing. 7. It is also stated that remedy lies to challenge the order of cancellation, which was passed after providing due opportunity of hearing. 7. The learned Additional Advocate General however admitted that in the record, there exists no endorsement of written, oral or telephonic complaint of any shop and it also reveals that while causing inspection in the districts, all the shops therein were not covered, but drive of inspection was not designed to settle the score, rather the allegations made are wholly frivolous and motivated. The Minister has no intention to direct any action against a particular caste, rather he, in no way, is involved in the drive because it was conducted by the committee at their own. Hence, the allegations of mala fide are not made out so as the allegations against the officers. 8. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record. 9. The writ petitions were filed to challenge order of suspension passed by the respondents. The order is under the signature of the District Supply Officer(Vigilance) at Headquarter. 10. The first question for my consideration is as to whether the inspection caused by the committee, so constituted by the order dated 21.02.2014, was strictly in consonance and in reference to the said order or not? It is looking to the fact that serious allegations have been made regarding selective action against one caste, leaving others. The relevant para of the order dated 21.02.2014 is quoted hereunder for ready reference:- (Vernacular matter omitted........Ed.) 11. The perusal of the para quoted above reveals that inspection team was constituted to ensure proper compliance of the Act of 2013. However, inspection was to be conducted on a complaint received in writing, oral or on telephone. In seems to be for the reason that District Supply Officer of the district concerned is otherwise having the competence to inspect the shop and even to take action as per the provisions of law. 12. Mr. Rajendra Prasad, the learned Additional Advocate General was asked to find out as to whether record demonstrates any written, oral or telephonic complaint of any shop. He was given time on 27.05.2014 and thereby, the matters were posted for 28.05.2014. As per the instructions passed on to him, the record does not show any written, oral or telephonic complaint in regard to the shops of any district or the area. He was given time on 27.05.2014 and thereby, the matters were posted for 28.05.2014. As per the instructions passed on to him, the record does not show any written, oral or telephonic complaint in regard to the shops of any district or the area. He was also asked to show as to whether inspection was caused in all the districts so as to give effect to the Act of 2013. Mr. Rajendra Prasad fairly conceded that it was only in four districts leaving the others, but it was due to the notification of Parliamentary Elections, otherwise drive would have been taken. The question is as to how vigilance team, so constituted, could reveal that deficiency would be only in four districts and that too in the shops belonging to the petitioners. The record does not show inspection of all the shops of particular district to complete the drive. It seems that selective drive was made by the inspecting team for few shops leaving the others. I am not going on the issue as to on what time, inspection was made and other aspects levelling serious allegations against the officers of the respondents. The facts on record show that the inspecting team, so constituted, under the order dated 21.02.2014 can cause inspection, if any written, oral or telephonic complaint is received, but contrary to the order referred to above, the inspection was caused without any complaint whatsoever. 13. In the background aforesaid, the inspection was caused in violation of the directions contained in the order dated 21.02.2014. The routine inspection is not to be made by the team but by the District Supply Officer, whose competence has not been taken away even in the notification issued on 17.01.2012. Thus, to crystallize the issue, routine inspection has to be made by the District Supply Officer of the district concerned, however, if a complaint is received at the headquarter level, inspection can be caused by the committee/team specially constituted for the purpose. 14. The issue does not end herein inasmuch as the inspection has been caused selectively in four districts without showing any reason. In any case, if it is taken to be a bona fide act of the respondents, then it could not be clarified as to why inspection, as a drive, was not caused for all the shops of the districts, but selectively for few shops. In any case, if it is taken to be a bona fide act of the respondents, then it could not be clarified as to why inspection, as a drive, was not caused for all the shops of the districts, but selectively for few shops. The committee cannot dream irregularities or discrepancies only in the shops which have been selected by them. There has to be a basis for selective inspection of few shops leaving the others of some districts. If the drive was to be given effect even without any written, oral or telephonic complaint, then the way action has been initiated by the respondents, speaks volume above it. Serious allegations exist against the Minister so as the officers, but in view of the reply given by them, I am not recording finding on those allegations. Though, allegation of causing discrimination has been made because majority of the cases booked by the respondents belongs to a particular caste, but there are few cases where other caste members are also found involved. 15. In view of the discussion made above, the inspection was caused by the committee dehors the directions contained in the order dated 21.02.2014. The finding recorded above could result in setting aside of the order of suspension, but during pendency of the writ petitions, the respondents completed the enquiry and passed an order of cancellation of authorization of fair price shops. In view of above and as the order of suspension now merges in the order of cancellation, the prayer made in the writ petitions cannot be granted in those cases where order of cancellation of authorization has been made, but in other cases where order of cancellation of authorization has not been passed as yet, the order of suspension is set aside for the reasons given above. 16. It may however be clarified that by the aforesaid, the respondents would not be precluded to take action against anyone which include even the petitioners if material exits for enquiry and subsequent action thereupon. It should not however be an action in designed manner or to settle the score with particular community or act with bias or discrimination. It would be expected from the respondents to be reasonable and fair while doing so. They should not cause drive for inspection of the shops selectively, but strictly in accordance with the order dated 21.02.2014. It should not however be an action in designed manner or to settle the score with particular community or act with bias or discrimination. It would be expected from the respondents to be reasonable and fair while doing so. They should not cause drive for inspection of the shops selectively, but strictly in accordance with the order dated 21.02.2014. It may however be added that apart from drive as given in the order aforesaid, each District Supply Officer would be authorized independently to take action against any shop, which is working in violation of the terms and conditions of authorization or in violation of the Order of 1976 and lastly in violation of the Act of 2013. 17. In those cases where authorization has been cancelled, the petitioners would be at liberty to take remedy as available to them under the provisions of law and dismissal of the writ petitions on account of passing of subsequent order of cancellation of authorization would not be taken adverse to the petitioners. It is however made clear that if while challenging the order of cancellation, the petitioners make specific allegation of causing enquiry in a haste and without following the principles of natural justice in strict terms, then it would be considered without influence and if challenge to the cancellation remains successful, they would be at liberty to seek action against the defaulting officers also. With the aforesaid, all the writ petitions stand disposed of. Order accordingly.