Ram Prasad vs Commissioner Of Food & Supply ...
2009 Latest Caselaw 4326 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+           W.P.(C) 9756/2009

            RAM PRASAD                   ..... Petitioner
                                 Through       Mr. Pradeep Gupta, Mr. Suresh Bharti
                                               and Mr. Eklavya Gupta, Advocates.

                        versus

            COMMISSIONER OF FOOD & SUPPLY DEPTT. & ORS. ... Respondent
                          Through    Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani, Adv.

            CORAM:
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

                                ORDER

% 26.10.2009

1. On 17th March, 2005, the enforcement team of Food and Supply

Department, Government of NCT of Delhi, carried out surprise inspection of

the fair price shop of the petitioner located at 16/498E, Bapa Nagar, Karol

Bagh. The following four deficiencies were noticed by the Enforcement

Directorate:-

(i) Kerosene oil depot (KOD for short) was found to be closed at the

time of visit.

(ii) Net variation or shortage in stock of 548.600 ltrs. of kerosene oil

was found on physical inspection.

     (iii)    Card Register was not made available.



            WPC NO.9756/2009                                                 Page 1
      (iv)   Complaint book was not made available.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed

affidavits of 61 cardholders before the Appellate Authority that they had

received kerosene oil as per the entitlement and this explains shortage of

540.600 ltrs.of kerosene oil at the time of inspection.

3. This contention of the petitioner has been dealt with by the

Appellate Authority in the order dated 3rd July, 2006. No doubt that 41

cardholders were found at the given addresses but in other cases

discrepancies were noticed. The possibility, that the petitioner would have

secured the said affidavits, cannot be denied. In the reply to the show

cause notice dated 25th April, 2005, the petitioner had stated that on 17th

March, 2005, 524 ltrs. Kerosene oil was issued to 100 cardholders and the

sales were effected by making entries in the cash memos. The stand, now

taken by the petitioner is that the said sales were made to 61 cardholders

and entries instead were made in the stock/sale register. The reply dated

25th April, 2005, does not refer to the stock/sale register and the entries

made therein. Admittedly, the register was not produced before the

enforcement team on 17th March, 2005. The reply to the show cause

notice dated 25th April, 2005, states that sales were effected by making

entries in the cash memos. The said cash memos were not made available

WPC NO.9756/2009 Page 2 and produced before the enforcement team. The plea raised by the

petitioner in his reply dated 25th April, 2005, was that the said cash memos

were filled up by his salesman, Mr. Satish, who had suddenly left for

hospital at 5 P.M. on 17th March, 2005. The license holder, i.e., the

petitioner, was not aware that the salesman, Mr. Satish had started using a

new cash memo book and had left the cash memos in a drawer. The

respondents have rejected the said explanation stating that it is an

afterthought and a sham excuse, which does not merit acceptance. In view

of the aforesaid, the order passed by the respondent authorities does not

require any interference. The writ petition has no merit and the same is

accordingly dismissed.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

      OCTOBER 26, 2009
      NA




      WPC NO.9756/2009                                                Page 3