Allahabad High Court
Radharaman Gupta vs State Of Up And 4 Others on 29 May, 2025
Author: Dinesh Pathak
Bench: Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:92750 Court No. - 37 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 13633 of 2024 Petitioner :- Radharaman Gupta Respondent :- State Of Up And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashwani Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- Abhishek Mishra,C.S.C.,Vinayak Varma With Case :- WRIT - C No. - 13572 of 2024 Petitioner :- Santram Yadav Respondent :- State Of Up And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashwani Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- Abhishek Mishra,C.S.C.,Pawan Kumar Singh With Case:- WRIT - C No. - 13626 of 2024 Petitioner:- Ainulhuda Respondent:- State Of Up And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner:- Ashwani Kumar Counsel for Respondent:- Abhishek Mishra, C.S.C., Vinayak Varma Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak, J.
1. All three captioned writ petitions are related to surcharge imposed against three different persons (petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitions) under Section 68 (2) of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 (in brevity, "Act 1965"). Surcharge order dated 20.02.2019 and the appellate court order dated 28.12.2023 are common in all three writ petitions. Thus, the aforesaid writ petitions are being decided by a common order of the date wherein Writ-C No. 13633 of 2024 (Radharaman Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and 4 Others) is the leading file.
2. Heard Sri Mohan Yadav and Sri Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vinayak Varma, learned counsel for the respondent no.5, as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3. None has appeared for the respondent no.4.
3. Petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 28.12.2023 passed by Cooperative Tribunal, U.P. Lucknow in Appeal No. 54 of 2019 (Radharaman Gupta Vs. Assistant Commissioner/Assistant Registrar and Others), affirming the surcharge order dated 20.02.2019 passed by Assistant Commissioner/Assistant Registrar Cooperative, Maharajganj, under Section 68(2) of the Act 1965, whereby surcharge of Rs. 17,41,544.90/- has been imposed again the petitioner.
4. Facts culled out from the record are that under the Uttar Pradesh Wheat Procurement Programme in Rabi Marketing Season (RMS) 2018-19, the Government of U.P. has authorised Provincial Cooperative Federation (P.C.F), Maharajganj as a procurement agency. The P.C.F., in turn, under his supervision, has made several cooperative societies as a procurement centre, including the following four societies/centres:
(i) Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Khairati
(ii) Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Mahuanwa
(iii) Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Jara, and
(iv) Sahkari Sangh Ltd. Nautanwa All four aforementioned societies come within the territory of Vikas Khand (Block Development), Nautanwa. For the smooth working of the scheme, Secretaries of the societies above have been entrusted with duties/responsibilities being a Centre In-charge to procure the wheat from the farmers. Intending to purchase/procure the wheat, PCF has provided funds and government-stamped bags, as per the scheme. Payment of purchased wheat has to be transferred to the account of farmers through R.T.G.S. (direct payment). Thereafter, the procured wheat has to be delivered to the Food Corporation of India (in brevity, 'F.C.I.') and receipt of said delivery has to be presented/ submitted before the P.C.F. Accordingly, Mr. Santram Yadav (petitioner in Writ-C No. 13572 of 2024) was the Secretary/Centre In-charge of Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Mahuanwa. Likewise, Mr. Radharaman Gupta (petitioner in Writ-C No. 13633 of 2024) was the Secretary/Centre In-charge of Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Kharaiti, and Mr. Ainulhuda (petitioner in WritC No. 13626 of 2024) was the Secretary/Centre In-charge of Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Jara and Sahkari Sangh, Nautanwa.
5. On the information communicated to the District Magistrate, Maharajganj qua illegal procurement of wheat in Government-stamped bags in the campus of M/s Jai Mata Foods Rice Mils, the District Food Marketing Officer busted the aforesaid campus of Jai Mata Food Rice Mills and found stencils, documents related to wheat purchase, government-stamped bags filled with wheat and empty government-stamped bags belongs to Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Mahuanwa, Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Jara, Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Kharaiti and P.C.F. Farm Service Centre, Belahiya, who were working under the supervision of P.C.F. Maharajganj. Having considered the illegal activities/malpractice in the implementation of the Uttar Pradesh Wheat Procurement Programme 2018-19, a first information report being F.I.R. No. 0087 of 2018, dated 23.05.2018, has been lodged under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. against all the aforesaid three Centre Incharge along with Mr. Manish Kumar Upadhyaya, owner of the rice mill, and one Mr. J.B. Singh, who was the District Manager, P.C.F. Maharajganj.
6. Assistant Commissioner/Assistant Registrar, vide its order dated 06.08.2018, has constituted a two-member committee to examine the correct relative status of wheat procurement in Rabi Marketing Season 2018-19 and the cause for shortcomings in delivering the purchased wheat. The aforesaid inquiry committee has submitted its report dated 09.08.2018 under Section 65 of the Act 1965. Having considered the report dated 09.08.2018, intending to further inquire, Asst. Commissioner/Asst. Registrar, vide order 14.08.2018, has appointed the District Cooperative Officer to inspect and submit a report under Section 66 of the Act 1965. After due investigation, the Inspecting Officer has submitted its detailed report dated 24.08.2018. Thereafter, Asst. Commissioner/Asst. Registrar, vide order dated 11.09.2018, has appointed an Inquiry Officer under Section 68(1) of the Act 1965, who has submitted his report dated 19.01.2019. In pursuance of the Inquiry report dated 19.01.2019 under Section 68(1) of the Act 1965, Asst. Commissioner/ Asst. Registrar has initiated proceedings for imposing Surcharge under Section 68(2) of the Act 1965 against the aforesaid three Centre In-charge. After giving due opportunity of hearing to all three delinquent Centre In-charge, surcharge has been imposed against them in the following manner:
(i) Mr. Radharaman Gupta, Secretary/Centre In-charge of Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Kharaiti, has purchased/procured 9370.76 quintal of wheat up to 21.05.2018. However, relatively, he has submitted the receipt/receiving before the procurement agency viz. P.C.F. Maharajganj, only for 8372.74 quintal of wheat, which has been delivered to F.C.I. Thus, he has embezzled Government fund amounting to Rs. 17,41,544.90/- by not delivering the wheat quantity of 998.02 quintal to the F.C.I. in contravention of the departmental directions/wheat procurement policy.
(ii) Mr. Santram Yadav, Secretary/Centre In-charge of Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Mahuanwa, has purchased/procured 13,310.00 quintal of wheat up to 22.05.2018. However, relatively, he has submitted the receipt/receiving before the procurement agency viz. P.C.F. Maharajganj, only for 11,168.71 quintal of wheat, which has been delivered to F.C.I. Thus, he has embezzled Government fund amounting to Rs. 42,38,238.55/- by not delivering the wheat quantity of 2428.79 quintal to the F.C.I. in contravention of the departmental directions/wheat procurement policy.
(iii) Mr. Ainulhuda, Secretary/Centre In-charge of Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Jara, has purchased/procured 10084.95 quintal of wheat up to 22.05.2018. However, relatively, he has submitted the receipt/receiving before the procurement agency viz. P.C.F. Maharajganj, only for 8237.00 quintal of wheat, which has been delivered to F.C.I. Thus, he has embezzled Government fund amounting to Rs. 32,24,672.75/- by not delivering the wheat quantity of 1847.95 quintal to the F.C.I. in contravention of the departmental directions/wheat procurement policy.
(iv) Same person, namely, Ainulhuda, being Secretary/Centre In-charge of Sahkari Sangh, Nautanwa, has purchased/procured 4660.11 quintal of wheat up to 21.05.2018. However, relatively, he has submitted the receipt/receiving before the procurement agency viz. P.C.F. Maharajganj, only for 3799.11 quintal of wheat, which has been delivered to F.C.I. Thus, he has embezzled Government fund amounting to Rs. 15,02,445.00/- by not delivering the wheat quantity of 861.00 quintal to the F.C.I. in contravention of the departmental directions/wheat procurement policy. In this view of the matter, Mr. Ainulhuda has embezzled a total amount of Rs. 32,24,672.75 + 15,02,445.00 = Rs. 47,27,117.75/-
7. Having been aggrieved with the surcharge order dated 20.02.2019 passed by the Assistant Commission/Assistant Registrar, Cooperative, Maharajganj under Section 68(2) of the Act, 1965, all the three delinquent Secretaries/Centre In-charge (mentioned above) have preferred separate appeals in the following manner:-
(a) Appeal No. 54 of 2019 (Radharaman Gupta vs. Assistant Commissioner/Assistant Registrar Cooperative and Others).
(b) Appeal No.36 of 2020 (Santram Yadav vs. Assistant Commissioner/Assistant Registrar Cooperative and Others).
(c) Appeal No.37 of 2020 (Ainulhuda vs. Assistant Commissioner/Assistant Registrar Cooperative and Others).
8. The Cooperative Tribunal, U.P., Lucknow has dismissed all the aforesaid three appeals by common order dated 28.12.2023, which is under challenge before this Court.
9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has advanced two folds submissions; first, proper and effective opportunity had not been accorded to the petitioner and second, owner of Jai Mata Foods Rice Mills namely Manish Kumar Upadhyaya and the Manager of P.C.F., Maharajganj namely J.B.Singh are equally responsible for embezzlement/malpractice, if any, committed in U.P. Wheat Procurement Programme.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.5 has vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by counsel for the petitioner and contended that a proper and effective opportunity of hearing had been accorded to the petitioner, as per law, before passing the surcharge order under Section 68(2) of the Act, 1965. Enquiry report dated 09.08.2018 has been submitted after considering the affidavit filed by the concerned Secretary/Centre In-charge. At the subsequent stage, at the time of submitting the report dated 19.01.2019 under Section 61(1) of the Act, 1965, he had submitted his reply dated 12.11.2018. Thereafter, at the time of passing the surcharge order under Section 68(2) of the Act, 1965, the petitioner had been accorded full opportunity to defend his case. Even at the appellate stage, it has been observed by the appellate tribunal that the petitioner had been accorded full and effective opportunity to address the point of fact, law and evidence. It is further contended that being a Secretary of the Cooperative Society, he is legally responsible for the act of the Society under Section 31 of the Act, 1965, therefore, Manish Kumar Upadhyaya, owner of the Rice Mill and J.B.Singh, Assistant Manager, P.C.F., Maharajganj have been exonerated from any embezzlement/malpractice under the U.P. Wheat Procurement Programme, 2018-19.
11. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record, it is manifest that the instant writ petition pertains to misappropriation of procured wheat/government fund under the U.P. Wheat Procurement Programme, 2018-19, allegedly committed by the present petitioner. It is admitted by both parties that under the U.P. Wheat Procurement Programme, 2018-19, all four Cooperative Societies, as mentioned above, have been earmarked as a Wheat Procurement Centre. Secretaries of the aforesaid centres have been entrusted with the duty to purchase/procure wheat from the farmers, and for this purpose, they have been provided advance funds by the P.C.F., Maharajganj. Direct transfer of funds to the account of farmers through R.T.G.S. within the stipulated period and other related facts are admitted, as well. Even the delivery of wheat in a lesser quantity relative to procured/purchased wheat from the farmers is admitted as well. In this backdrop of the fact, now the question would be who is guilty for supply of lesser quantity of wheat in comparison to what has been procured/purchased from the farmers. In all the enquiry reports i.e. under Sections 65, 66, 67, 68(1) and 68(2) of the Act, 1965, Secretaries/In-charge of the Centre (Sadhan Sahkari Samiti) have been held guilty for such embezzlement/malpractice whereby lesser quantity of wheat has been delivered to the F.C.I. relatively to the quantity which has been purchased/procured from the farmers. It is apposite to mention that the Government of U.P. conjunction with the Central Government, had launched a wheat procurement policy which is a part of the National Food Grain Procurement System. In Rabi Marketing Season (R.M.S.), 2018-19, the Government of U.P. has designed a seasonal programme to ensure procurement of wheat directly from the farmers at the Minimum Support Price (MSP) of Rs 1735/- per quintal. As per policy, the period for procurement of wheat in U.P. was fixed from April 1, 2018, to June 15, 2018. Only registered farmers are eligible to sell their wheat at Government Procurement Centres. They are required to provide necessary documents, such as land records and Aadhar details, for verification during the procurement process. Various State Government agencies, along with F.C.I., are authorised to undertake procurement. Payment to farmers is usually transferred directly to their bank account, often within a specified time frame (e.g. 72 hours). The objective of the scheme is to ensure remunerative prices to wheat-growing farmers, prevent exploitation by middlemen and strengthen the Public Distribution System (PDS) through adequate buffer stocks. To implement the Wheat Procurement Programme, 2018-19, the District Magistrate, Maharajganj, has issued an Office Memorandum dated 26.03.2018 promulgating several guidelines which were required to be followed in the process of procurement of wheat. As per facts of the case, the petitioner has been found guilty of malpractice and misappropriation of funds in violation of the conditions of the Wheat Procurement Programme, 2018-19 (U.P.) and Office Memorandum dated 26.03.2018 issued by the District Magistrate, Maharajganj. Accordingly, he has been imposed a surcharge to repay the embezzled money or to pay contribution and costs or compensation.
12. I am sceptical of the first submission advanced by counsel for the petitioner that no proper and effective opportunity of hearing had been accorded to the petitioner before passing the order of surcharge under Section 68(2) of the Act, 1965. In this respect, it is apposite to mention that the provision of the opportunity of hearing to the person guilty of the embezzlement/malpractice is provided only under Section 68(2) of the Act, 1965. Except the said provision, there is no other provision to accord the opportunity of hearing to the person guilty at the time of preliminary enquiry/inspection as enunciated under Sections 65, 66,67 and 68(1) of the Act, 1965. For ready reference, provisions under Section 68 of the Act, 1965 are quoted herein below:-
" 68. (1) If in the course of an audit, inquiry, inspection or the winding up of a co-operative society it is found that any person, who is or was entrusted with the organization or management of such society or who is or has at any time been an officer or an employee of the society, has made or caused to be made any payment contrary to this Act, the rules or the bye-laws or has caused any deficiency in the assets of the society by breach of trust or willful negligence or has misappropriated or fraudulently retained any money or other property belonging to such society, the Registrar may of his o motion or on the application of the committee, liquidator or any creditor, inquire himself or direct any person authorized by him by an order in writing in this behalf to inquire into the conduct of such person ;
Provided that no such inquiry shall be commenced after the expiry of twelve years from the date of any act or omission referred to in this sub-section.
(2) Where an inquiry is made under sub-section (1), the Registrar may, after affording the person concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard, make an order of surcharge requiring him to restore the property or repay the money or any part thereof, with interest at such rate, or to pay contribution and costs or compensation to such an extent as the Registrar may consider just and equitable.
(3) Where an order of surcharge has been passed against any person under sub-section (2) for having caused any deficiency in the assets of the society by breach of trust or willful negligence, or for having misappropriated or fraudulently retained any money or other property belonging to such society, such person shall, subject to the result of appeal, if any, filed against such order, be disqualified from continuing in or being elected or appointed to an office in any co-operative society for a period of five years from the date of the order of surcharge."
Section 68(2) of the Act, 1965 unequivocally denotes that after considering the enquiry report under Section 68(1) of the Act, 1965, the Registrar, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the person concerned, make an order of surcharge. In the given circumstances of the present case, it is explicitly reflected from the record that a proper and reasonable opportunity had been accorded to the petitioner before passing the surcharge order under Section 68(2) of the Act, 1965.
13. Perusal of the report dated 09.08.2018 submitted under Section 65 of the Act, 1965, evinces that the petitioner has filed his affidavit along with related documents in his defence to prove his innocence. He has provided names of several farmers along with their account numbers and other relevant details. At the subsequent stage, at the time of submission of the report dated 19.09.2019 under Section 68(1) of the Act, 1965, the petitioner has submitted his reply dated 12.11.2918. Finally, at the time passing the surcharge order dated 20.02.2019 under Section 68(2) of the Act, 1965, proper and reasonable opportunity had been accorded to the petitioner to put his defence before the Assistant Commissioner/Assistant Registrar, Cooperative, Maharajganj. In his reply, he has simply made the allegation against Manish Kumar Upadhyaya, owner of Rice Mill, and J.B.Singh, Assistant Manager, P.C.F., Maharajganj; however, he failed to adduce any evidence to prove their complicity in the alleged commission of embezzlement/malpractice. In his order dated 20.02.2019, the Assistant Commissioner/Assistant Registrar, Cooperative, Maharajganj, has unequivocally observed that notices were sent to the delinquent employees and they have been heard. It has also been observed that they have submitted relevant documents in support of their case. Having considered the documentary evidence adduced by the delinquent employee (petitioner) and the record relating to embezzlement, the authority under Section 68(2) of the Act, 1965 concluded that the Secretary/ Centre In-charge has fraudulently made entries qua payment of purchased wheat to the account of concerned farmers whereas no such procurement/ purchase was made. It has also been emphasised that the total quantity of wheat, relative to the purchased quantity of wheat, has not been delivered by the Cooperative Societies to the F.C.I. Thus, receipt of delivery of a lesser quantity of wheat has been submitted before the P.C.F., Maharajgaj. The difference in amount between the procured wheat and the delivered wheat has been treated as an embezzlement on the part of the Secretary/Centre Incharge, and the same has been imposed as a surcharge against him. Apart from that, the appellate tribunal, while deciding the appeal, has given full and effective opportunity of hearing to the delinquent Secretary/Centre Incharge before passing the appellate order, which is evident from paragraph no.14 of the appellate order. The appellate tribunal has unequivocally observed in paragraph 14 that the appellants have been accorded full opportunity to defend their case on the point of facts, law and the evidence on record. Observation made by the appellate authority in paragraph 14 of the order impugned dated 28.12.2023 has not specifically been rebutted by the petitioner in the instant writ petition.
14. Second submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner qua complicity of Manish Kumar Upadhyaya (proprietor of the rice mill) and J.B. Singh (then District Manager P.C.F. Maharajganj) in embezzlement/ malpractice is unconvincing as well. The appellate tribunal, while passing the order dated 28.03.2023, has discussed this aspect of the matter in detail and concluded that Manish Kumar Upadhyaya and J.B. Singh cannot be held guilty for causing any financial loss/embezzlement in contravention of the wheat procurement programme of Uttar Pradesh in Rabi Marketing Season 2018-19. As per the defence of the petitioner, the District Manager of P.C.F. Mr. J.B. Singh, in collusion with Manish Kumar Upadhyaya (proprietor of Jai Mata Foods Rice Mills) throughout transferred the fund to the account of the society without any demand and supplied the government-marked bags in a planned manner. He called upon the petitioner and forced him to transfer the fund through R.T.G.S. to the account of relatives of Manish Kumar Upadhyaya in his presence on different dates; while the petitioner tried to resist, he was threatened by Mr. J.B. Singh. Relatives of Mr. Manish Kumar Upadhyaya, who have received funds in their accounts, have never supplied the wheat proportionate to the fund received by them. To fix the liability of the petitioner, the learned appellate tribunal has placed reliance on section 31 of the Act 1965. Sub-section 2 of Section 31 denotes that the Secretary shall be the Chief Executive Officer of the society, and he shall be responsible for the sound management of the business of the society and its efficient administration. He will carry on the authorised and normal business of the society. He is also made responsible for the proper maintenance of various books and records of the society and for the correct preparation and timely submission of periodical statements and returns in accordance with provisions of the Act 1965 and the rules/by laws made there under as well as the instructions of the Registrar or the State Government. Therefore, in view of the duties and responsibility as denoted under Section 31(2) of Act 1965, Secretary/Centre In-charge of the cooperative society cannot elude his responsibility from the affairs of the cooperative society which encompasses financial embezzlement during the course of its business to implement the wheat procurement programme of Government of U.P in Rabi Marketing Season 2018-19. The appellate tribunal has disbelieved the theory that the campus of the rice mill has been hired by the then District Manager of P.C.F. to be a wheat procurement centre. Transfer of fund to the account of farmers who have got themself registered on the portal of State Government under the wheat procurement programme, delivery of purchased/procured wheat to the F.C.I. and submission of receipt before the P.C.F. about the delivery of wheat to F.C.I. are the sole responsibility of the Secretary/Centre In-charge; thus, he cannot evade his responsibility on any pretext whatsoever. He has to demonstrate that he has delivered an equal quantity of the wheat proportionate to the quantity which has been procured after direct transfer of money to the account of the farmer. Appellate tribunal has emphasised the agreement inked between the Secretary/Centre In-charge of the cooperative society with Manish Kumar Upadhyaya (proprietor of the rice mill). It has been observed that in the agreement document, appellants (Secretaries/Centre In-charge) have praised the working of the proprietor of the rice mill and agreed to pay rent @ 3000/- per month for the rented godown. Appellate tribunal, in this respect, has laid emphasis on paragraph no.7 of the office memorandum dated 26.03.2018 to point out that wheat procurement centres would be chosen possibly from the public places, viz. Panchayat Bhawan, Samiti Bhawan near Mandi (agricultural market) main road. The procurement centre will not be created near the place of any rice millers or middlemen, lest it be subject to stringent action. Despite the aforesaid direction issued in the office memorandum dated 26.03.2018, the Secretary/Centre In-charge (petitioner here in )has taken the godown of a rice mill on rent for hoarding the procured wheat, being a procurement centre. Appellate tribunal has unequivocally returned a finding that there is nothing on the record to demonstrate that appellants have agreed with the rice mill under the instructions of an authority competent. Thus, they have, on their own volition, inked an agreement with the proprietor of the rice mill, which is unfair on their part. It is further observed that appellants have to explain their conduct as to why they have acted in contravention of the directions and conditions issued qua the procurement process of wheat for the Rabi Marketing Season 2018-19.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has emphasised that the petitioner has sent a complaint through registered letter dated 30.04.2018 and 04.08.2018, and the affidavit dated 07.08.2018, pointing out the conduct of Manish Kumar Upadhyaya (proprietor of the rice mill) and J.B. Singh (then District Manager of P.C.F.). The first appellate court, while dealing with this point, has unequivocally returned a finding that the procurement period of wheat was fixed from April 1, 2018, to June 15, 2018, thus, moving any complaint at the belated stage after the procurement period is of no consequence. Not moving any complaint at the initial stage during the procurement period creates doubt qua bonafides of the Secretaries/Centre In-charge. Appellate tribunal concludes that intending to create a defence, premeditated complaint has been made in precaution at the part of the appellants (petitioner herein). Wheat was proposed to be procured/purchased from the farmers, who had themselves registered on the portal; therefore, pretext of the petitioner that he has been forced to procure/purchase wheat from the relatives of Manish Kumar Upadhyaya is illogical. Thus, the complaint, if any, moved by the petitioner is malafide and premeditated.
16. In this conspectus, as above, authority competent exercising its power under Section 68(2) of the Act 1965 and the appellate tribunal have returned concurrent finding of fact that the petitioner (Secretary/Centre In-charge of procurement centre of concerned Resource Cooperative Society limited) is the only responsible person under the Act, for any embezzlement/malpractice committed during the procurement of wheat in Rabi Marketing Season 2018-19, to implement the wheat procurement programme of Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner, being the Secretary/Centre In-charge of the procurement centre, has received funds from the P.C.F., Maharajganj, intending to procure the wheat from the farmers. He has transferred the said fund to the account of the farmers and shown the procurement of wheat proportionate to the fund transferred, however, he has not delivered the equal quantity of wheat proportionate to the quantity of the procured wheat. Meaning thereby lesser quantity of wheat has been delivered to the F.C.I. relative to the quantity which has been procured. Thus, no justifiable ground is made out in the instant matter to interfere in the finding of fact returned by the authorities concerned in the orders impugned dated 20.02.2019 and 28.12.2023. There is nothing on the record to demonstrate how the petitioner is prejudiced or if there is a likelihood of causing miscarriage of justice to him, owing to the orders under challenge. There is no illegality, perversity, irregularity or ambiguity in the orders under challenge passed by the appellate tribunal and the authority concerned under Section 68 (2) of the Act 1965, warranting the indulgence of this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
17. Resultantly, the instant writ petition, being misconceived and devoid of merits, is dismissed with no order as to costs. This order will apply to the connected writ petitions as well viz. Writ-C No. 13572 of 2024 and Writ-C No. 13626 of 2024.
Order Date :- 29.5.2025 Sumit K./VR