Karnataka High Court
Shrimanth Krishnappa Bandagar vs The Deputy Commissioner Ors on 20 February, 2017
Author: Rathnakala
Bench: Rathnakala
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RATHNAKALA
WRIT PETITION NO.81596/2012 (GM-EC)
BETWEEN:
1. SHRIMANTH KRISHNAPPA BANDAGAR
AGE: 34 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O: ALAGINAL VILLAGE
TQ & DIST: BIJAPUR - 586103.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.R.S.LAGALI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES & CONSUMER'S AFFAIR
SECTION, BIJAPUR-586101.
2. THE TAHASILDHAR
BIJAPUR-586101.
3. THE FOOD INSPECTOR I,
BIJAPUR, RURAL SECTION-586101.
4. JAI HUMAN YUVA MANDAL
FAIR PRICE DEPOT, ALAGINAL VILLAGE
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN
SHRI.CHANDRAKANTH ANNAPPA KADAM
586103.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.A.SYED HABEEB AGA FOR R1 TO R3
BY SRI.SANGANAGOUDA V BIRADAR, ADVOCATE
FOR R4)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR
DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT QUASHING THE
ANNEXURE-K VIZ., THE ORDER DATED: 15.02.2012 BEARING
NO. PÀæBDºÁgÀ/J¥sï.¦.J¸ï/1/¹Dgï/4/2009-10 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT
NO.1 AND FURTHER DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO
ISSUE FRESH AUTHORIZATION TO DIFFERENT PERSONS OR
SOCIETIES WHO HAVE THE ELIGIBILITY AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of Deputy Commissioner at Annexure-K whereby in a disciplinary proceedings initiated against 4th respondent, he was imposed with fine amount only and suspension of his authorization of distribution grocery items which was ordered earlier was vacated.
2. Facts not in much dispute between the parties is 4th respondent who runs the fair price depot in Alaginal village of Bijapur Taluka committed serious illegalities and malpractice in distribution of food items. The Food Inspector/3rd Respondent 3 inspected his shop and recommended to the Deputy Commissioner/1st Respondent to cancel the authorization issued in favour of 4th respondent. Accordingly, show cause notice was issued by 1st respondent at Annexure-C dated 30.10.2009 and his authorization was suspended pending disposal of enquiry vide at Annexure-D. A villager by name Chandrakanth BN Annappa of Alaginal, Bijapur Taluka challenged suspension order and the same came to be dismissed vide Annexure-E.
3. Further report was called for from the Tahasildar by the Deputy Commissioner on a request made by 4th respondent to continue his authorization vide Annexure-G. The Food Inspector found that the 4th respondent is distributing the food items properly and there is no complaint against him. Some of the villagers lodged a complaint with the Tahasildar about the report at Annexurte-G. However, Tahasildar recommended for vacation of the suspension order, vide his order at Annexure-K. The Deputy Commissioner held that 4th respondent has collected excess amount from the card holders and has misappropriated amount to a tune of Rs.6,315/-. Hence, fine 4 amount of Rs.6,815/- and set-aside the suspension order. He warned 4th respondent to distribute the food at the Government rate and also in accordance with the quantity prescribed.
4. Sri.R.S.Lagali, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Deputy Commissioner having found that the 4th respondent has committed irregularity it was incumbent upon him to cancel the authorization in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1992 (For short 'the Act'). Section 5 of the Act contemplates to get an authorization, an institution or person should not have been convicted for the offence under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and his authorization to distribute the food should not have been cancelled. The 4th respondent against whom there was adverse report by the Tahasildar on the previous occasion is able to change the color of the second report at Annexure-G. Having been found guilty of irregularity misappropriation, the petitioner is not entitled for authorization to continue as a distributor. Hence, writ of certiorari is warranted to cancel his authorization in the interest of general public of village. 5
5. Sri.A. Syed Habeeb, learned AGA seeks to sustain the order of the Deputy Commissioner and submits that the impugned order is justified, since Section 12 of the Act does not contemplate any minimum punishment in the case of misappropriation. The Deputy Commissioner has exercised his discretion while imposing punishment though 4th respondent was found guilty of malpractice. That apart the case of 4th respondent does not fall within the parameters of Section 5 of the Act, since, he is not convicted previously under any provisions of Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
6. Sri.Sangangouda V, Biradar, learned counsel for the 4th respondent while seeking to sustain the order of the Deputy Commissioner submits that as of now there is no complaint against his client from any quarter and having paid the fine imposed. The previous irregularities if any shall be deemed to have been purged.
7. With the above submission, the first question for consideration is about legality of discretion exercised by the 6 Deputy Commissioner while imposing punishment under the Act and the next question would be the eligibility of 4th respondent to continue to hold the authorization.
8. As submitted by learned AGA, Section 12 of the Act does not contemplate any minimum punishment that may be imposed on a party, found guilty of contravention of terms and conditions of authorization. The 4th respondent since found to have improved himself vide second report at Annexure-J, he has been imposed fine, with a warning to distribute the food articles at the rate and quantity fixed by government. So far Section 5 of the Act is concerned, no material is shown that at any point of time 4th respondent was convicted under any of the provisions of Essential Commodities, Act 1955 or his dealership license was cancelled. That being the factuality, the circumstances do not warrant exercise of writ of jurisdiction to quash the order at Annexure-K. Hence, writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KJJ