Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 702 (RAJ)

Sandeep Phenyol v. State of Rajasthan

2023-03-21

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2023
JUDGMENT : 1. The lawyers are abstaining from the work due to strike. 2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: “It is therefore, humbly prayed that :- (a) The writ petition may kindly be allowed and; (b) An appropriate writ, direction or order may be issued against the respondents quashing the order for re-inquiry issued by respondent no.4 on the application dated 24.5.2011 vide annexure-21 and also quashing the order passed by Additional District Collector dated 7.6.2011 vide annexure-22. (c) That an appropriate writ, direction or order may be issued against the respondents quashing the order dated 27.6.2011 vide annexure-23 whereby the payment of the work done by the petitioner has been ordered to be stayed. (d) An appropriate writ, direction or order may be issued against the respondents holding that inquiry ordered by the District Collector and Additional District Collector are void ab initio and without jurisdiction and consequent action taken thereon are also void. (e) That without prejudice to the above relief an appropriate writ, direction and order may be issued against the respondents not to use the order of re-inquiry as a tool to stop payment and discontinue supply of phenyl/cleaner having been made or to be made by the petitioner. (f) that an appropriate writ direction may be issued for recompensating the petitioner with payment of outstanding dues of the petitioner with payment of outstanding dues of the petitioner with 18% interest since the execution of work upto the full payment thereof (g) Cost of litigation may be awarded to the petitioner. (h) Any other relief which this Hon’ble High Court may deem fit and proper may also be granted in favour of the petitioners.” 3. As the pleaded facts and the record would reveal, the petitioner’s (Proprietor of M/s. Sandeep Phenyol) Unit is registered as a Micro Unit with the District Industry Centre, Sri Ganganagar. The petitioner is a manufacturer and supplier of phenyol/cleaner with the brand, namely, ‘Osmic’; the trademark for the same was issued by the Government of India vide TM No. of 2043353. 3.1 The Deputy District Education Officer, Sadulsahar issued an order on 01.03.2011, whereby it was required that the Firm supplying phenyol/cleaner to various schools run by the Education Department ought to be in possession of 10 requisite certificates, as mentioned in the said order. 3.1 The Deputy District Education Officer, Sadulsahar issued an order on 01.03.2011, whereby it was required that the Firm supplying phenyol/cleaner to various schools run by the Education Department ought to be in possession of 10 requisite certificates, as mentioned in the said order. As per the petitioner, the petitioner-Firm fulfilled all such requirements. 3.1.1 The Block Elementary Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Suratgarh, vide letter dated 01.02.2011 and the Block Elementary Education Officer, Padampur vide letter dated 21.02.2011, directed all the Head Masters of Elementary and Middle Schools to purchase phenyol/cleaner from a Firm registered with District Industries Officer having trademark and income tax certificate, pollution certificate & measurement certificate from the Industries Department; and other requisite certificates/documents from the competent authorities. As per the petitioner, the petitioner-Firm also fulfilled all such requirements. 3.2 Subsequently, on 21.03.2011, the Rajasthan Shikshak Sangh (Shekhawat), Sri Ganganagar lodged a complaint against the petitioner before the District Collector, Sri Ganganagar, on the basis of a news article published in the daily newspaper “Sandhya Border Times”. Upon the said complaint, the Additional District Collector, Sri Ganganagar ordered an enquiry to be conducted by the District Education Officer (Elementary Education), Sri Ganganagar and directed the District Education Officer to conduct proceedings as per the note appended to such complaint and submit a report; whereupon the District Education Officer constituted a two-Member Committee, which gave opportunity of being heard to all concerned. The Rajasthan Shikshak Sangh (Shekhawat) also placed its grievances and documents on record. Thereafter, a questionnaire was framed, and such questionnaire was exhaustive in nature, covering all aspects of the enquiry on the issue raised in the complaint. 3.2.1 As per the petitioner, it is clear from the aforementioned complaint dated 21.03.2011 that the same was made on the basis of the news article published in the aforementioned daily newspaper, and thus, the initiation of the enquiry was also based on the said news article, which was to the effect that a particular Firm (petitioner-Firm) is pressurizing schools to buy phenyol from it and charging exorbitant rates for its product and the Block Education Officers are in cahoots with the Firm. The statements of Block Elementary Education Officers, Sadulsahar, Padampur, Raisinghnagar & Suratgarh were in favour of the petitioner. Afterwards the enquiry was concluded and report was submitted with no charges proved against the petitioner. The statements of Block Elementary Education Officers, Sadulsahar, Padampur, Raisinghnagar & Suratgarh were in favour of the petitioner. Afterwards the enquiry was concluded and report was submitted with no charges proved against the petitioner. 3.3 However, on 16.05.2011, respondent No.8-District Secretary, Rajasthan Shikshak Sangh (Shekhawat) filed a complaint before the District Collector. On 07.06.2011, an order was passed by the Additional District Collector, Sriganganagar, directing the District Supplier Officer, Sriganganagar to conduct inquiry into the said complaint. As per the petitioner, the District Supply Officer has not made any inquiry from the petitioner and he has not served with any notice in that regard. 3.3.1 Vide order dated 27.06.2011, the District Education Officer (Elementary Education), Sriganganagar, on the basis of the order of the District Collector, directed all the Block Elementary Officers to stop the payment to the petitioner-Firm. The petitioner’s Unit is a small cottage industry, and aggrieved by the impugned action of the respondents, the present petition has been preferred before this Hon’ble Court, claiming the afore quoted reliefs. 4. Mr. Sandeep Sharma (Proprietor of the petitioner-Firm) present in person submitted that the Rajasthan Shikshak Sangh (Shekhawat), Sri Ganganagar lodged the complaint before the respondent-authorities, and on basis of the said complaint, the Additional District Collector, Sri Ganganagar ordered an enquiry to be conducted by the District Education Officer (Elementary Education), Sri Ganganagar. However no charges were proved against the petitioner upon conclusion of the enquiry. 4.1 He further submitted that the Rajasthan Shikshak Sangh (Shekhawat) is pressurizing the authorities concerned to conduct re-enquiry in the matter, and thus, the role of the Rajasthan Shikshak Sangh (Shekhawat) in the matter is suffers from mala fide. Even after the inquiry report, the Additional District Collector was pressurized to conduct the re-inquiry and that the same is without any substance, arbitrary and illegal. 4.1.1 He also submitted that the Additional District Collector, Sriganganagar vide order dated 07.06.2011 ordered the District Supply Officer, Sriganganagar to do a re-inquiry into the matter. Afterwards by an order dated 27.06.2011, the District Education Officer directed all the Block Elementary Officers to stop the payment to the petitioner-Firm, depriving the petitioner of the means of livelihood. 4.2 As per the petitioner, the petitioner is being deprived of business of supplying phenyol/cleaner despite fulfilling all requirements of a small scale cottage industries. Afterwards by an order dated 27.06.2011, the District Education Officer directed all the Block Elementary Officers to stop the payment to the petitioner-Firm, depriving the petitioner of the means of livelihood. 4.2 As per the petitioner, the petitioner is being deprived of business of supplying phenyol/cleaner despite fulfilling all requirements of a small scale cottage industries. According to the Account Rules as far as the purchases upto Rs.3000/-are concerned, no tender is required and value of phenyol/cleaner supplied by the petitioner was upto Rs.1470/-. 4.2.1 The phenyol/cleaner was supplied in 20L pack in each of the school, and the amount charged for 20L phenyol/cleaner was Rs.1470/-(including value added tax @ 5%). The phenyol/cleaner supplied by the petitioner was sent through private vehicle (PICK UP, bearing registration No.RJ-13 G 3710), driven by one Rajesh Kumar, which is used for publicity and supply only, and has no connection with the nutritious diet supply. Moreover, as per the petitioner, it was also found during the earlier enquiry that no concrete evidence was available regarding supply of phenyol/cleaner alongwith the nutritional items; the role of the respondent No.9-Sangh in the nutrition programme is also not above board. 4.3 It is submitted that the impugned orders of re-inquiry are manifestly arbitrary and illegal and the stoppage of payment requires to be compensated with interest @ 18% p.a. payable to the petitioner. 5. Heard the petitioner (Proprietor of the Firm) present in person as well as perused the record of the case. 6. This Court finds that the petitioner-Firm is a supplier of phenyol/cleaner to schools run by the Education Department of the State. The Block Elementary Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti Suratgarh and Block Elementary Education Officer, Padampur vide orders dated 01.02.2011 and 21.02.2011 respectively, directed the Head Masters of Elementary and Middle Schools to purchase phenyol/clearner from Firm registered with District Industries Officer and having trade mark, income tax certificate, pollution certificate and other relevant and requisite certificates/documents, which, as per the record, were duly complied with and fulfilled by the petitioner. 7. 7. This Court further finds that the respondent-Rajasthan Shikshak Sangh (Shekhawat) filed the complaint against the petitioner-Firm and the same was enquired into, and during such enquiry, the issues were framed by the authority concerned, and after making due deliberations, the authority has drawn the conclusion in the enquiry report (Annexure-20), in favour of the petitioner, as follows: ^^fu"d"kZ :- nksuksa i{kksa ds c;ku] ÁLrqr lk{;ksa ,oa xokgksa ds c;kuksa dk xBu v/;;u] voyksdu ,oa euu djus ij tkap lfefr bl fu"d"kZ ij igqaph gS fd eS0 lanhi Qsfu;ksy ineiqj jksM+ Jhxaxkuxj jktLFkku ljdkj ftyk m|ksx dsUnz Jhxaxkuxj }kjk iathd`r QeZ gS A ifjoknh }kjk ,slk dksbZ lk{; izek.k izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gS ftlesa ifjokn esa mYysf[kr vkjksi izekf.kr gks jgs gksa A** 7.1 Thus, the concerned enquiry authority has concluded that the petitioner-Firm is a registered Firm, as required, and that the allegations as levelled in the complaint have not been proved against the petitioner-Firm, as no concrete evidence has been placed on record before the authority to prove such allegations. Furthermore, this Court finds from the deliberations made by the enquiry authority in the enquiry report (Annexure-20), that the authority has also taken into due consideration the fact that the allegations in the complaint are of a very serious nature, as the same pertains to the health and hygiene of the young children studying in the schools of the State. 8. This Court finds that though the Education Department is solely responsible for monitoring the education system in the State of Rajasthan, and therefore it is also required to monitor, amongst others, the supply of phenyol/cleaner and nutritional items in the Schools of the State, but the manner in which the impugned orders have been passed, the same do not inspire confidence of this Court. 9. In light of the aforesaid observations and looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this Court is inclined to allow the present petition. 10. Consequently, the present petition is allowed, and while quashing and setting aside the impugned orders 07.06.2011 (Annexure-22) as well as order dated 27.06.2011 (Annexure-23) The respondents are accordingly directed to release the necessary payments towards the supply, of the products in question, made by the petitioner, within the period of two months from today. All pending applications stand disposed of.