Kerala High Court
C.K.Abdul Salam vs The District Supply Officer on 2 March, 2022
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH 2022/11TH PHALGUNA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 20994 OF 2021
PETITIONERS:
1 C.K.ABDUL SALAM
AGED 55 YEARS
FATHIMA VILLA, KARUYACHERY,
NILESHWAR P.O., KASARAGOD-671314.
2 C.K.ABDUL KHADER,
NADEEM MANZIL, MARKET ROAD,
NEELESWARAM, KASARAGOD.
BY ADVS.
C.K.PAVITHRAN
NEENU PAVITHRAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER
CIVIL STATION, KASARAGOD-671315.
2 TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER,
HOSDURG, MINI CIVIL STATION, KANHANGAD-671315.
3 TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER,
VELLARIKKUNDU, VIA PARAPPA, VELLARIKKUNDU P.O.,
KASARAGOD-671315.
4 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
BY SMT.PARVATHY KOTTOL,GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 02.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.20994/2021
:2:
N. NAGARESH, J.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No.20994 of 2021
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2022
JUDGMENT
~~~~~~~~~ The petitioners, who are Authorised Wholesale Distributors (AWD) appointed under the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966 in Kasaragod District, are aggrieved by the non-payment of dealers commission in respect of AWDs 11, 12 and 13.
2. The petitioners state that when Food Security Act, 2013 was enacted, a Door Delivery System was introduced. While starting the Door Delivery System, the stock of ration articles in possession of the petitioners as on the date, were taken over by respondents 1 and 2. The shop records including the Stock Register and Day Book were also taken over by the respondents. The petitioners stated that from W.P.(C) No.20994/2021 :3: December, 2016, the petitioners are not running the AWDs.
3. As per the earlier Scheme of ration distribution, AWDs used to purchase food grains from FCI Depots on payments and sell it to the Retail Distributors. The AWDs get a margin by way of commission. The said commission is paid by the respondents directly to the AWDs. While the stock was taken over pursuant to the introduction of Door Delivery System, payment of dealers' commission was not made.
4. The petitioners submitted Exts.P1 and P2 representations to the 1 st respondent-District Supply Officer. From the information availed by the petitioners under the RTI Act, an amount of ₹5,34,809/- is due to the petitioner towards commission amount. The non-payment of the commission to the petitioners is highly arbitrary, contends the petitioners.
5. The 1st respondent resisted the writ petition filing counter affidavit. The 1st respondent stated that the petitioners are yet to receive the commission amount for the month May, 2017. The commission has to be disbursed by W.P.(C) No.20994/2021 :4: the Civil Supplies Commissioner. Such disbursement can be done only after verifying the stock registers, records and ledgers. The liabilities, if any, from the AWDs will have to be deducted. According to the 1 st respondent, the petitioners owe a liability of ₹5,58,325/- as arrears to the Government. Therefore, it was not possible to pay the commission amount of ₹5,34,809/- to the petitioners. The 1 st respondent, however, stated that liability information regarding the audit has been submitted to the Director of Civil Supplies and a decision on payment of commission will be taken after the Government takes a final decision.
6. The petitioners stated that they are not liable to pay the amount of ₹5,58,325/- to the Government as alleged. 400 quintals AAY rice and 365 quintals of AAY rice were found transferred to BPL stock on 08.04.2016 and 17.05.2016 respectively in AWD 11. It has been stated that the rationed articles were distributed to the card holders free of cost so that it did not create any liability. Similarly, it is alleged that in AWD 12, 400 quintals of AAY rice is W.P.(C) No.20994/2021 :5: transferred to APL normal rice and 280 quintals of AAY rice is transferred in stock to APL subsidy rice and in this stock transfer, there was a liability of ₹3,94,123/- since the transferred rice was not retransferred when the stock was available. Therefore, the allegation that the petitioners owe a sum of ₹5,58,325/- to the Government is totally wrong.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents.
8. The petitioners claim payment of commission fell due to them prior to the introduction of Door Delivery System consequent to the enactment of Food Security Act. The counter affidavit filed by the 1 st respondent would show that admittedly, the respondents are liable to pay commission amount of ₹5,34,809/- to the petitioners.
9. The issue arises because the respondents found on the basis of certain audit that the petitioners owe a larger amount to the Government. The petitioners vehemently controvert the said allegation. In the counter affidavit filed by W.P.(C) No.20994/2021 :6: the 1st respondent, it has been stated that liability information regarding the audit has been submitted to the Director of Civil Supplies and a decision on payment of commission will be taken once the final decision is taken by the Government.
10. It has to be noted that the alleged liability from the petitioners is of the year 2016. The petitioners have ceased to be in the business of ration distribution since December, 2006 onwards. More than five years have lapsed thereafter. No liability has been fixed on the petitioners so far with notice to them. In the circumstances, this Court is of the view that payment, if any, due to the petitioners cannot be withheld further when the liability is not so far finally fixed on the petitioners.
The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the 1st respondent to conduct an inspection of the records relating to the transactions in question in the presence of the petitioners. After giving an opportunity to the petitioners to peruse the relevant records, the liability of the petitioners should be computed. The commission amount payable to W.P.(C) No.20994/2021 :7: the petitioners should be paid after adjusting liability, if any, found due from the petitioners. This exercise shall be completed within a period of two months.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE aks/26.02.2022 W.P.(C) No.20994/2021 :8: APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20994/2021 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 31.01.2021 FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 31.01.2021 FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED
23.04.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT'S EXTS:
R1(a) COPY OF LETTER DT 21.3.2018 OF CIVIL SUPPLIES
COMMISSIONER.
R1(b) COPY OF INSPECTION REPORT DT NIL OF TSO,
KASARAGOD.