Delhi High Court
Lamba Kod vs Financial Commissioner & Others on 18 November, 2009
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision : 18th November, 2009.
+ W.P.(C) 8121/2009
LAMBA KOD ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Anil Panwar, advocate.
versus
FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Ms.Aruna Tikku, advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
M/s. Lamba Kod is a partnership firm who were granted licence
to distribute kerosene oil under the Public Distribution Scheme.
2. On 25th November, 2005, 3000 lts. of kerosene oil was supplied
to the petitioner-firm by Sheel Trading Company, an agent of
Hindustan Petroleum. After about seven months, on 21st June, 2006,
the Enforcement Directorate of Food and Supplies Department,
Government of NCT of Delhi visited the shop of the petitioner-firm for
inspection/verification. The shop was found to be closed and therefore
sealed. The shop was subsequently desealed on 30th June, 2006 in the
presence of Mr. Suresh Kumar, one of the partners of the petitioner-
firm and inventories were recorded.
3. The petitioner-firm was asked to account for the sale of the
WPC No.8121/2009 Page 1
kerosene oil supplied to them between 25th November, 2005 till 21st
June, 2006 vide show cause-cum-suspension notice dated 3rd October,
2006 in view of the inspection report. There was no response to this
notice. Another notice dated 24th November, 2006 was issued for
appearance of the partners on 1st December, 2006. On the said date
also there was no appearance and the matter was adjourned to 8 th
December, 2006. One of the partners-Mr. Raj Kumar appeared and
submitted a short reply on 8th December, 2006. He denied receipt of
3000 lts. of kerosene oil on 25th November, 2005. It was stated that he
was on medical leave from 23rd November, 2005 for a period of three
months. With regard to the second allegation of supply of 108 lts. of
kerosene oil to non-existing card holders, it was stated that the said
card holders may have shifted from their old addresses.
4. Mr. Raj Kumar was asked to produce the other partner-Mr.Suresh
Kumar. On 10th January, 2007, Mr. Raj Kumar and Mr.Suresh Kumar as
well as Mr.Ajay Chawla, partner of Sheel Trading Company appeared
before the Assistant Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies
Department. The original receipt book of delivery of 3000 lts. of
kerosene oil was produced. Mr. Ajay Chawla, partner of Sheel Trading
Company submitted that Mr. Raj Kumar had signed the approval sheet
as well as the sale invoice in token of acceptance of delivery of 3000
lts. of kerosene oil. Mr. Raj Kumar denied his signatures on the said
documents. Mr. Raj Kumar was disbelieved by the Assistant
Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies Department who compared
WPC No.8121/2009 Page 2
signatures of Mr. Raj Kumar with the admitted signatures on other
documents. It was also held by the Assistant Commissioner, Food and
Civil Supplies Department that the petitioner was unable to explain the
supply of 108 lts. of kerosene oil to non existing card holders whose
addresses were not traceable during verification/inspection by the
Enforcement Branch. The petitioner-firm had not made any attempt to
trace out and locate the said card holders.
5. The said order has been upheld by the first Appellate Authority
and by the Financial Commissioner in his order dated 11th December,
2008.
6. As noticed above, as per the stand of the respondents, 3000 lts.
of kerosene oil was supplied on 25th November, 2005 and the
inspection/verification by the Enforcement Department team was
carried out on 30th June, 2006 i.e. nearly seven months after the date
of said delivery. In this connection, the respondents in the counter
affidavit have stated that quota of kerosene oil to be supplied is fixed
on quarterly basis and in the present case the quota of the petitioner-
firm was fixed much before the supply of kerosene oil on 25th
November, 2005. It is difficult to believe that the petitioner would not
have protested or written any letter in case he had not received their
quota of supply of kerosene oil of 3000 lts. which was due in the month
of November, 2005 till the search/inspection was carried out by the
Enforcement Department in June, 2006. Kerosene oil through Public
Distribution System is to be supplied to persons who do not pay
WPC No.8121/2009 Page 3
income tax or are below the poverty line at a subsidized price. These
supplies are made on month to month basis. Quota is fixed on
quarterly basis keeping in view the number of card holders to whom
the supply is to be made. In these circumstances, it is difficult to
accept the contention of the petitioner that he did not receive the 3000
lts. of kerosene oil on 25th November, 2005 but they had kept quite
and did not protest. The said plea is an after-thought.
Writ Petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
NOVEMBER 18, 2009.
P
WPC No.8121/2009 Page 4
