Delhi High Court
Madan Lal Suresh Kumar vs The Commissioner, Food & ... on 22 July, 2009
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1118/2008
Date of decision: 22nd July, 2009
MADAN LAL SURESH KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Nitin Sehgal, Advocate.
Versus
THE COMMSISIONER FOOD & SUPPLIES DELHI&ANR.. Respondents
Through Mr. Habibur Rahman, Advocate for Mr.
Saleem Ahmed, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ?
O R D E R
%
1. The petitioner was issued a fair price shop licence for distribution of
controlled food articles. On 28th March, 2007, inspection was done at the
fair price shop of the petitioner and the following discrepancies were
noticed:
(1) Bags of wheat belonging to fair price shop of the petitioner were
W.P. (C) No. 1118/2008 Page 1
found lying in a nearby chakki.
(2) On verification and checking, the fair price stock was found to be
short by 13.40 quintals of wheat and by 17.33 quintals of rice.
2. The licence of the petitioner was suspended by order dated 2nd April,
2007 and a show cause notice was issued as to why the petitioner's
licence should not be cancelled. The petitioner submitted his reply
admitting shortage of wheat and rice as mentioned by the enforcement
team but submitted that wheat and rice had been stocked adjacent to the
shop as pest control operation had been undertaken. It was further stated
that the bags of wheat found at chakki did not belong to the fair price
shop of the petitioner.
3. Assistant Commissioner (Food and Supply) by order dated 5th
September, 2007 cancelled the licence granted to the petitioner. He held
that diversion of wheat to the atta chakki was noticed and the owner of
the atta chakki could not produce any document at the time of inspection
that the wheat had been purchased from open market. Subsequently,
during the course of hearing before the Assistant Commissioner,
photocopy of a bill issued by Mittal Trading Company was produced. The
Assistant Commissioner noticed that in the photocopy date of purchase
has been over-written and he rejected the same on that account.
Regarding shortage of 13.40 quintals of wheat and 17.33 quintals of rice,
Assistant Commissioner has recorded that the checking staff had counted
W.P. (C) No. 1118/2008 Page 2
and weighed the entire stock in the shop and then calculated the shortage.
The checking staff had stated that not a single bag of wheat or rice was
found lying outside the shop. It is recorded in the order of the Assistant
Commissioner that senior officers of the respondent were also present
along with the enforcement team at the time of inspection.
4. On appeal filed by the petitioner, Commissioner (Food and Supply)
has confirmed the order of cancellation of licence. It is mentioned in the
said order that at the time of inspection in addition to staff from the
enforcement branch, officers of Central Vigilance Committee, Anti-
Hoarding Cell and Assistant Commissioner (South-West) were present. It
is also mentioned in the said order that the bags of wheat found at atta
chakki had the marking of the petitioner's fair price shop No. 8740. The
petitioner's contention that empty bags might have been purchased by
the atta chakki owner from a scrap dealer was rejected. The
Commissioner held that the so-called documentary proof in form of bills
from Mittal Trading Company for purchase of wheat by atta chakki owner
appear to be fabricated. It has been held that at the time of inspection
the petitioner was not able to submit any proof.
5. It is clear that at the time of inspection on 28th March, 2007, officers
from Enforcement Directorate, Central Vigilance Committee, Anti-Hoarding
Cell and Assistant Commissioner (South-West) were present. At the time
of inspection no alibi or explanation was given by the petitioner in respect
W.P. (C) No. 1118/2008 Page 3
of 13.40 quintals of wheat and 17.33 quintals of rice, which were found to
be short. The quantity involved is substantial and cannot be ignored. It
was not stated by the petitioner that at the time of inspection or shortly
thereafter he had written any letter that the stock had been removed and
was lying outside the shop. The plea with regard to pest control also does
not appeal to reasoning as admittedly some stock was found in the shop
itself. Neither was this plea taken at the time of inspection.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner wanted to rely upon certain
internal file notings, copies of which he has obtained under the Right to
Information Act, 2005. Internal file notings may contain opinions and
views of some officers but these opinions and views cannot be a good
ground to set aside the impugned orders, which have been passed after
examining facts of this case. Similarly, the petitioner relies upon order
dated 19th September, 2007 passed in the case of M/s Banwari lal Ram
Kumar. In the said case, after inspection wheat was found to be short by
30 kg, rice was found to be short by 9.7 kg and sugar was found to be
short by 5.3 kg. Looking into the explanations furnished by the said party,
the suspension order was revoked and proceedings for cancellation of
licence were dropped without prejudice to the outcome of the FIR lodged
by the enforcement branch. Each case is different and as noticed above,
shortage of wheat, rice and sugar found in the said case was small,
compared to the shortage of 13.40 quintal of wheat and 17.33 quintals of
W.P. (C) No. 1118/2008 Page 4
rice found in the case of the petitioner herein.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the
present writ petition and the same is dismissed.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
JULY 22, 2009
VKR
W.P. (C) No. 1118/2008 Page 5
