Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 6 (RAJ)

Bhanwara Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2015-01-05

SANGEET LODHA

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. - By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned legality of order dated 13.7.12 passed by the Food Commissioner, Government of Rajasthan, whereby a revision petition preferred by the petitioner under Section 22A of Rajasthan Foodgrains and Other Essential Commodities Article (Regulation & Distribution) Order, 1976 (for short "Order, 1976") against the order dated 3.6.11 passed by the District Supply Officer, Nagaur, cancelling the authorisation issued in his favour to operate the Fair Price Shop and forfeiting the security amount, stands dismissed. 2. The relevant facts are that vide authorisation dated 7.3.01 issued by the District Collector (Supply), Nagaur, the petitioner was authorised to operate Fair Price Shop at Village-Barna, Tehsil-Degana, District-Nagaur. The proceeding for cancellation of authorisation issued as aforesaid, was initiated vide notice dated 22.11.10 issued by District Supply Officer, Nagaur. The authorisation was proposed to be cancelled on the ground that on inspection of the Fair Price Shop run by the petitioner being conducted on 21.11.10, 164 bags of wheat purchased by the petitioner from the Nagaur Cooperative Wholesale Bhandar, Degana, vide bill no.8096 dated 19.11.10, were not found in stock. 3. A reply to the notice was filed by the petitioner taking the stand that the goods loaded in the truck did not reach the petitioner's shop on 19.11.10 and therefore, the petitioner contacted the driver of the truck on telephone , who informed that the goods will be delivered on 20.11.10, however, in the meantime, the vehicle was intercepted and checked by the Sub Divisional Officer, Degana, during the transit and the goods were seized. 4. Thereafter, on 9.12.10 under the instructions of District Supply Officer, Nagaur, the Naib Tehsildar, Sanju, inspected the record maintained by the petitioner at the Fair Price Shop. It was found that the wheat alleged to have been distributed by the petitioner to seven persons during the month of August, 2010 to October,2010, has not been entered in their Ration Card. 5. On the basis of the inspection report submitted by the Naib Tehsildar, the District Supply Officer, Nagaur issued an amended show cause notice dated 5.1.11 to the petitioner incorporating therein the allegations based on the inspection report submitted by Naib Tehsildar as well. 5. On the basis of the inspection report submitted by the Naib Tehsildar, the District Supply Officer, Nagaur issued an amended show cause notice dated 5.1.11 to the petitioner incorporating therein the allegations based on the inspection report submitted by Naib Tehsildar as well. The petitioner filed a reply thereto clarifying that the wheat distributed to the Ration Card holder has been duly entered in the Register maintained and however, on account of inadvertent error, the entries thereof have not been made in the Ration Card held by the specified persons. 6. After consideration of the reply submitted by the petitioner as aforesaid, the District Supply Officer, Nagaur, recorded the finding holding the petitioner guilty of the allegations levelled and accordingly, in exercise of the power conferred under clause 8 and 9 of the Order, 1976, vide order dated 3.6.11, cancelled the authorisation issued in favour of the petitioner and the security deposit a sum of Rs. 1,000/- was also ordered to be forfeited. 7. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a revision petition under clause 22A of Order, 1976 before the Food Commissioner, Rajasthan. The revision petition preferred stands dismissed by the Food Commissioner vide order dated 13.7.12. Hence, this petition. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is operating the Fair Price Shop for last ten years and there was absolutely no complaint against him. Learned counsel submitted that the proceeding initiated against the petitioner for cancellation of the authorisation was actuated by malice. Learned counsel submitted that bare perusal of the order impugned reveals that the defence of the petitioner has not been taken into consideration by the District Supply Officer, Nagaur as also by the revisional authority. Learned counsel urged that it is a matter of record that the truck carrying the wheat bags in question was intercepted and checked by the Sub Divisional Officer and the same were seized and therefore, the question of same being found in the stock at the time of inspection does not arise. Learned counsel submitted that bare persual of the order impugned passed makes it abundantly clear that the defence set out by the petitioner has been brushed aside and he has been held guilty by the District Supply Officer, Nagaur, by merely recording its conclusion without assigning any reason therefor. Learned counsel submitted that bare persual of the order impugned passed makes it abundantly clear that the defence set out by the petitioner has been brushed aside and he has been held guilty by the District Supply Officer, Nagaur, by merely recording its conclusion without assigning any reason therefor. Learned counsel submitted that before recording the finding holding the petitioner guilty, no inquiry was conducted by the District Supply Officer, Nagaur and therefore, the order impugned passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 9. On the other hand, learned Deputy Government Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the findings recorded by the District Supply Officer, affirmed by the revisional authority remain findings of facts, which cannot be said to be capricious or perverse so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel submitted that the defence of the petitioner has been taken into consideration by the District Supply Officer while passing the order impugned and therefore, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner in this regard is absolutely devoid of any merit. Learned counsel submitted that admittedly in response to the show cause notice, the petitioner had filed reply and therefore, the allegation levelled by the petitioner that the order impugned has been passed without giving him an opportunity of hearing, in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, is also baseless. 10. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 11. Indisputably, in response to the show cause notice issued by the District Supply Officer, Nagaur, the petitioner had taken the specific defence that the bags of wheat purchased from Wholesale Bhandar were not delivered to him on 19.11.10 and on contact being made to the driver on telephone, he was informed that the goods shall be delivered on 20.11.10. It is not in disputed that the truck carrying the wheat bags was intercepted and checked by the Sub Divisional officer and on suspicion of possibility of black marketing, the same were seized. Obviously, if the bags were not delivered to the petitioner, the question of same being found in the stock at the time of inspection on 21.11.10 does not arise. Obviously, if the bags were not delivered to the petitioner, the question of same being found in the stock at the time of inspection on 21.11.10 does not arise. It is pertinent to note that the District Supply Officer while passing the order impugned has referred to the defence taken by the petitioner by way of reply to the show cause notice but then, the same has been altogether ignored while recording the finding of guilt against the petitioner. There is no finding recorded either accepting or rejecting the defence set out by the petitioner. In the considered opinion of this court, the District Supply Officer, Nagaur, has held the petitioner guilty of the allegation levelled by merely recording its ipse dixit, without objective consideration of the defence set out by the petitioner. In this view of the matter, the findings recorded by the District Supply Officer, Nagaur, is ex facie capricious and perverse. 12. In view of the discussion above, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and the matter needs to be remanded to the District Supply Officer, Nagaur, to pass an appropriate order afresh after due consideration of the defence taken by the petitioner and giving him an opportunity of personal hearing in accordance with law. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 3.6.11 passed by the District Supply Officer, Nagaur and order dated 13.7.12 passed by the Food Commissioner, Rajasthan, Jaipur are quashed. The matter is remanded to the District Supply Officer, Nagaur to pass an appropriate order afresh after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and due consideration of the defence set out by him, in accordance with law. No order as to costs.Petition Allowed. *******