Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Ujjain Co Operative Marketing ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 July, 2014
1
W.P. No.4644/2014
24.7.2014
Shri A.Nimgaonkar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned counsel for respondents
No.1, 3 & 4.
Shri Abhishek Tugnawat, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
Counsel for the respondents have stated that the issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the order dated 23.6.2014 passed in W.P. No.4042/2014 in the matter of Vipnan Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit, Manasa and others Vs. State of M.P. and others, wherein the learned single Judge relying upon the Division Bench judgment has dismissed the identical writ petitions.
Counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the same. This Court in the matter of WP No.4042/2014 has referred to the earlier order dated 13/11/2013 passed in WP No.6280/2013 and has held as under:-
"By the aforesaid order identical relief claimed by the petitioner therein has been declined. Learned counsel for the petitioners has made an attempt by stating that in the present case, the license of the society still valid and therefore, no tender could have been issued.2
This court has carefully gone through the record of WP No.6280/2013 and in the aforesaid case also the license on the date the tender notice was issued therein was also valid, meaning thereby that in an almost identical circumstances, the writ petition preferred by the Jobat Vipnan Sahkari Samiti has been dismissed. Not only this, the State Govt. in exercise of powers conferred under Clause-14 of the Madhya Pradesh Public Distribution System Control Order 2009 has issued an order dated 14.5.2013 and the Madhya Pradesh Civil Supply Corporation has already been empowered to function as a lead society for distribution of Controlled Essential Commodities. The State of Madhya Pradesh has taken the aforesaid action in compliance to the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of People's Union for Civil Liberties Vs. Union of India and Others, reported in (2013) 2 SCC 633 and the paragraphs 10, 10.1 and 10.2 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under :
"10. TRANSPORTATION OF PDS FOODGRAINS 10.1 The Civil supplies Corporation or the department where Corporation is not formed should lift the stock from the FCI godowns and deliver it to FPS for distribution. The States which have decentralised procurement scheme, supply of 3 foodgrain can be made directly from the State Godown to FPS. There should be doorstep delivery at FPS level. As far as possible, there should be no intermediate storage by the Corporation after lifting the stock from the FCI godown. This will help in reducing the cost incurred on multiple handling as well as reduce the pilferage and diversion of PDS foodgrain. Wherever possible, the Corporation can also have their own trucks for carrying of stocks from FCI/State godowns to FPS. The Corporation can also provide mobile vans for distribution of PDS items in the inaccessible areas.
10.2. Further, induction of global positioning system (GPS) technology keep a track on the movement of trucks carrying foodgrains from FCI to fair price shops. This will also enable the authority to fix responsibility on the transporter if the stock does not reach FPS at the scheduled time. Steps should also be taken to make the trucks carrying PDS foodgrain identifiable either by painting them with a specific colour or by putting banners stating that they are carrying PDS commodities."
Keeping in view the aforesaid directions issued by the Apex Court, the State Govt. has rightly issued the order dated 14.5.2013 and the same does not warrant any interference. Not only this, the question of interference with the process of tender especially in light of the fact that the Division Bench has already decided the controversy involved in the present case does not arise and the question of granting any relief to the petitioners does not arise. The admission is declined 4 The admission of other connected writ petitions are also declined".
In view of the above, the present writ petition is also dismissed for the detailed reasons which have been assigned in the order in the matter of Vipnan Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit, Manasa (supra).
(Prakash Shrivastava) Judge vm