Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kasam vs State Of Haryana And Others on 16 January, 2025
CWP-973-2025
2025
Sr. No.103
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP
CWP-973-2025
Date of Decision : 16.01.2025
Kasam ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Haryana and others ...Respondent
...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Present : Mr. Jamshed Ahmed, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sharad Aggarwal, DAG, Haryana.
***
LAPITA BANERJI,
BANERJI J. (Oral)
Under Challenge in the present writ petition is the order dated March 21, 2024 202 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Nuh Nuh-
respondent No.2 and order dated November 15, 2023 (Annexure P-4) passed by the he Controller, District Food Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Nuh. By the aforesaid oresaid orders, the petitioner's license to run a ration depot stood cancelled. The Deputy Commissioner, Nuh upheld the order passed by the learned District Food and Supplies Controller, Controller, Nuh Nuh.
2. Upon a spot inquiry conducted on November 44, 2023, it was found that one Umar Mohammad used to work at the depots. When the bills of food grains found in stock were demanded from him, he informed the officials that the same was at his residence at Firozpur Jhirka. It was submitted by the said Umar Mohammad Mohamm that previously he ran a ration shop in W Ward No.8, Shiv Colony but the same was suspended due to a police case. Thereafter Thereafter, a depot was allotted in his native Village illage Hasanpur Bilonda Attached Patan Patan-Udaypuri, Tehsil Firozpur Jhirka in the name of his son Junaid. He also ran the depot of Kasam-petitioner petitioner who was the depot holder for machine No.108700200022 in Ward No.8, Shiv Colony, Firozpur Jhirka. He also ran the depot of one Tarif VANDANA 2025.01.21 10:34 Page 1 of 6 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-973-2025 2025 in Ward No.9 He submitted that he did the work of distribution of ration in four depots and the record of all of them were kept in his hous house. After the record was shown by the said Umar Mohammad physical checking of the stock of the depots depot belonging to the Kasam was done. During physical inspection, it was found that the rate and stock board was not found completely filled. Helpline numbers were not found written at the depot site. The 12 digit ID of the ration depot was not found wri written. Entitlement for ration items was not found written down. The scale of issue of ration items was not found written. Retail issue price of ration items was not found written. The timings of opening and closing of ration depots were not found written down.
wn. The stock of ration items allotted during the month was not found written down. Opening and closing stock of ration items was not found recorded. The telephone number of the department was not found written at the depot site. No electronic scale was found found at the spot. The fork was not found certified by the Weights and Measures Department. Samples of food grains were not found displayed in transparent boxes at the depot site. The list of monitoring committee members was not found posted at the dep depot. The BPL list was not found pasted at the depot.
3. The cardholders present on the spot were asked regarding the distribution facility by the depot holder. They intimated to the officials that the depot holder was Kasam but the work of distribution was done by the said Umar Mohd. He used to charge Rs.20/-
Rs.20 for sugar from them and Rs.10 Rs.10/- from the cardholderss for grains. He charged Rs.40/-- for mustard oil and used to give ration only once a month. Sugar was given once in two two-three months.
Ration ion was distributed distr only once a month. It was intimated to them that the said amount of Rs.10/-
Rs.10 was charged to the card holders for free grains as transportation and weighing costs.
VANDANA 2025.01.21 10:34 Page 2 of 6 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-973-2025 2025
4. Therefore, official concerned came to the finding that neither Kasam-petitioner petitioner himself distributed ration in Ward No.8 or 9 nor gave the cardholders the ration that they were required to get get, at the price fixed by the authorities.
5. Due to the above irregularities, vide letter dated N November 6, 2023, license of the depot d holder to supply ration was immediately suspended. Show-cause-notice notice was issued on November 6, 2023. The depot holder appeared before the Controller on November 15, 2023 and submitted a written reply. In his reply, he stated as follows:-
follow
1. "The The rate and stock board waswas filled. It was kept inside the shop due to mischief by mischievous children.
2. Helpline numbers were written at the depot site.
3. The 12 digit ID of the ration dept was marked and written.
4. The entitlement to ration items was written.
5. The scale of issue of ration items was written.
6. The telephone number of the department was written at the depot site.
7. The retail price of ration items was written.
8. The opening and closing time of the ration depot was also written.
9. The stock of ration items at the depot was written and filled.
10. Electronic fork was present at the depot site.
11. The electronic fork also has a certificate certified by the Weights and Measures Department.
12. Samples of ration items were kept in transparent boxes at the depot.
13. List of members of the monitoring monitoring committee displayed at the depot site.
14. The list of B.P.L. and A.A.Y. card holders was displayed at the depot site.
2. The statement given by card holders against me is that the depot holder is Sh. Kasam but the work of distribution of ration is do done by Umar Mohd., who sells sugar at the rate of Rs.20/ Rs.20/- per Kilogram and charges Rs.10/-
Rs.10/ from each cardholder in exchange of grains. Takes mustard oil at the rate of Rs.40 per two liters and distributes ration only on one day in the month.
While I myself distribute ration, I do not take any money for weighing from any cardholders. As per the instructions of the government, I distribute mustard oil at Rs.20 per liter. And in the distribution of sugar, I distribute it at the rate of Rs.13.50 per kilogram, butt due to the huge crowd at the depot, Umar Mohd. helps me. That as long as I keep distributing the entire ration, the ration in the POS machine does not become zero. The card holders who have given statements against me, out of which some of the ration car cards are deleted, are baseless and baseless, in this regard the card holders have VANDANA 2025.01.21 10:34 Page 3 of 6 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-973-2025 2025 given their statement along with their affidavit that we don't have any complaint with Kasam Depot Holder Ward No.8 Firozpur Jhirka Attachment Ward No.9 Shiv Colony Firozpur Jh Jhirka, about ration distribution, we are getting the right ration every month from the depot holder."
6. The Controller after considering the written reply and after giving personal hearing to the petitioner came to the finding that ration was distributedd to the beneficiaries once in two months and less ration was given by getting the thumb impression. The petitioner did not give the requisite ration to the beneficiaries and ran r n the shop through one private individual Umar Mohd. The Controller found negligence on the part of the petitioner in distributing sugar @ Rs.20/-
Rs.20/ per kg instead of Rs.
Rs.13.50/- per kg and wheat @ Rs.10/- instead of distributing it free. He also found that taking the thumb impression from the cardholders without without distributing ration was dereliction of duty. The reply of the depot holder-petitioner holder petitioner was not found to be satisfactory. Therefore, herefore, it was held that the depot depot holder violated Rule 9 of Haryana Targeted Public Distribution System (Licensing ing and Control) Order-2022.
Consequently,, the license of the petitioner Kasam Kasam- son of Fazru was directed to be cancelled with immediate effect and the entire security amount deposited by him was directed to be confiscated. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated ted March 21, 2024 (Annexure P P-6) upheld the order dated November 15,, 2023 passed by the Controller and rejec rejected the appeal by holding the same to be baseless. He held that no error was found in the impugned order dated November 15, 2023.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner sub submits that there was no negligence on the he part of the depot holder holder-petitioner. He distributed ration through his father. He also submitted that some of the cardholders who had initially deposed against the petitioner, petitioner later have given their affidavit affidavits stating that no infirmity was committed by the petitioner in distribution of VANDANA 2025.01.21 10:34 Page 4 of 6 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-973-2025 2025 ration. Such affidavits were not taken into consideration by the Controller while deciding the petitioner's case.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials on record. It appears from the records that the petitioner was the son of Fazru and resident of Village Hasanpur Bilon Bilonga and he was not the son of said Umar Mohd., who was found at the depot, when spot inspection was made. All the documents relating to distribution of ration were produced by the said Umar Mohd. from his house. Therefore, there is no force in the contention of the petitioner that ration was being distributed by the father of the petitioner. No error rror of law or error on the face of record or jurisdictional error could be pointed p out by the petitioner.
9. The cardholders admittedly depose deposed against the petitioner at the time of spot inspection but later some of them tried to support th the petitioner by way of filing of self declarations,, for reasons best known to themselves.
10. It creates a distinct impression on the mind of this Court that such self-declaration declarations were filed at the instigation of the petitioner himself and may be due to the palms of the the declarants being greased.
11. This Court is of the view that the writ petition suffers from seriously disputed question of facts and a writ Court cannot/should not adjudicate in matters matter concerning such hotly disputed questions of facts. A beneficial reference erence can be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in "Shubhas hubhas Jain Vs. Rajeshwari Shivam and others others" (2021) 20 Supreme Court Cases 454. Relevant extract thereof is reproduced herein below:
"xxx
25. It is well settled that the High Court exercising its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not adjudicate hotly disputed questions of facts.
facts. It is not for the High Court to make a comparative assessment of conflicting conflicting technical reports and decide which one is acceptable."
acceptable VANDANA 2025.01.21 10:34 Page 5 of 6 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-973-2025 2025 xxx xxx" (emphasis supplied)
12. Learned counsel counsel for the petitioner relies on an order passed by a Division Bench of this High Court in LPA No.7 No.793-2021 "Himmat Vs. State of Haryana and others" decided on January 25, 2023 to contend that the Hon'ble Division Bench set aside the extreme punishment of cancellation of license for running the ration depot and set aside the order of the C Controller and the Deputy Commissioner and directed fresh fresh hearing in the matter.
13. This Court does not find that the said case of Himmat (supra) aids the case of the petitioner petitione in any manner as undisputedly in that case, the appellant had run the depot for 11 years without any complaint against him and admittedly, admittedly there was no other allegation apart from recording an excess stock of 20 ltrs of mustard oil being found in the stock. The only allegation was that the license licens holder misused his authority since there was an excess stock of 20 ltrs of mustard oil.
14. The said allegation was not disputed. The allegations in the present case are serious where neither the depot is being run by the license holder nor or are the cardholders/beneficiaries cardholders/beneficiaries being distributed ration at the price fixed, by the depot holder.
15. Consequently, the writ petition being CWP No.973 of 2025 is dismissed.
16. Pending application(s) if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE January 16,, 2025 202 vandana Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No VANDANA 2025.01.21 10:34 Page 6 of 6 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document