Peoples' Union For Civil ... vs State Of Kerala And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 668 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

                                  &

               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

     FRIDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 18TH POUSHA, 1942

                      WP(C).No.32239 OF 2011(S)

PETITIONER:

               PEOPLES' UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES,
               (PUCL), DISTRICT OFFICE, ROOM NO.58, JAI HIND,
               BUILDING, M.O.ROAD, TRICHUR-1, REPRESENTED BY, ITS
               SECRETARY, RAMACHANDRAN PENAKOM.

               BY ADV. PEOPLES UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES(PARTY)
RESPONDENTS:

      1        STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS
               DISTRICT COLLECTOR, AYYANTHOLE, TRICHUR-680 003.

      2        THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
               THE KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION,, MAVELI
               BHAVAN, GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI-582 020.

      3        TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER
               CHAVAKKAD, PIN-680 506.

      4        THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER
               TRICHUR-680 003.

      5        DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT
               VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT, SHORNUR ROAD,, THRISSUR
               DISTRICT-680 001.

      6        SHAJI SO. ABOOBACKER AGED 39 YEARS
               ARD NO.202, VAKAYIL HOUSE, PERUMPADATH VILLAGE,,
               AIYOOR DESOM, PONNANI TALUK, PIN-679 564.


               R1 & R3 TO R5 FOR SRI TEK CHAND, SENIOR GOVERNMENT
               PLEADER
               R2 FOR SMT.MOLLY JACOB, STANDING COUNSEL

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.32239 OF 2011(S)                     2




                                    JUDGMENT

SHAJI P.CHALY,J

This is a Public Interest Litigation filed by an organization called Peoples

Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), Thrissur, seeking the following reliefs:

i) to issue a writ of mandamus or such other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to act upon the Exts.P1 and P6 representations dated 12/10/2011 and 6/2/2010 respectively in a time bound manner;

ii) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 5 jointly or severally to investigate into the functioning of all the ration shops/outlets of public distribution system in the Trichur District in a time bound manner;

iii) to direct the respondents to initiate a surveillance and monitoring system on the functioning of the ration shops from the Taluk levels as early as possible;

iv) to issue such other reliefs as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2. Material contentions discernible from the writ petition are as follows;

According to the petitioner, it has found out that despite various

directions of the Apex Court, several rations shops are functioning in the

Thrissur District departing away from the direction of the Supreme Court; that

an active member of the petitioner organization has observed that ARD No.202

at Andathodu, owned by one Shaji, was not functioning properly and has

indulged in various unlawful activities. Thereupon, Exts.P1 and P2

representations were submitted by the petitioner as well as a member of the

petitioner organization before the State Government. According to the

petitioner, another ARD No.310 was found functioning unethically violating all

the norms intended by the statutes and the court orders and an example sited

is that, a very poor lady was denied consumer goods from the said rations

shops. Other allegations are made. In the above backdrop it is contended that

the right to food being a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution

of India, if the ration shops do not function properly, that would violate the

fundamental right guaranteed to the citizens under the Constitution of India. It

is also pointed out that in spite of submitting the representation before the

State Government, no action was initiated to redress the grievances

highlighted in the said representation, which is a clear dereliction of duty on

the part of the State Government and the officials.

3. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the District Supply Officer,

Chavakkad i.e., the 4th respondent, wherein it is submitted that on the basis of

the representation submitted by one Rajesh A. Nair belonging to the petitioner

organization, against the functioning of ARD No.202 of Chavakkad Taluk at

Andhathode, an enquiry was ordered and the licence of ARD 202 was

suspended temporarily on 02.12.2011. The Taluk Supply Officer, Chavakkad

conducted a detailed inspection and also recorded the statements of the card

holders, who were present at the time of the inspection at the retail shop

attached to other ARD. Out of 26 card holders who were present, 25 card

holders stated that they do not have any complaint against the licensee ARD

202 and also stated that ARD was functioning without any complaint and they

were getting the rationed articles properly with bills. The statement of the

licensee of the retail shop could not be recorded as he was away on Haj Tour.

Thereafter as directed by the 4th respondent, Taluk Supply Officer, Chavakkad

again conducted a detailed inspection on 30.06.2012, recorded the statement

of 68 card holders and only a few card holders had complained against the

licensee. It is also submitted that in addition to this, 152 ration card holders of

the concerned ARD also submitted a representation, in which they had stated

that they have no complaint against ARD 202 and requested to take steps for

restoring the licence of ARD 202 to the licensee.

4. It is stated that Sri.Rajesh A.Nair, Sri.Ramachandran Penakam and

Subhash Chandrabose, the office bearers and members of the petitioner

organisation had submitted complaints against ARD 202 on different occasions

and pursuant to the same, the Taluk Supply Officer, Chavakkad had conducted

enquiry and inspected the retail shop on 23.03.2012 and also recorded the

statements of the card holders. None of the card holders was ready to give any

complaint against the licensee of the retail shop. Since the office bearers of the

petitioner were absent, a statement was received from the Secretary of

organisation, in which it is stated that at present he do not have any complaint

and he is very satisfied with the functioning of ARD 202, which was attached

to another ARD after the suspension.

5. Thereafter as stated earlier, another enquiry was also conducted on

30.06.2012 and also recorded the statements of the card holders, where

questions were put to the card holders regarding the allegations about black

marketing of rationed goods, adulteration, shortage in weighment, proper

issue of bills, distribution of less quantity of food grains, time regarding the

opening of shop and also regarding allegations of corruption. Most of the card

holders were supporting the licensee and had no further complaints against

the licensee. In this regard it is also submitted that consequent to the

suspension of the retail shops, the matter was taken up with the Director of

Civil Supplies and an opinion was sought regarding the action to be taken

regarding the enquiry conducted and further steps for restoration of the

license to the suspended ARD. Meanwhile, the licence of ARD 187, to which

ARD 202 was attached, had also requested to detach the suspended ARD from

his retail shop.

6. In this context, it is also submitted that the President of the

Punnayurkulam Grama Panchayath had submitted an application signed by 94

persons to the 4th respondent to entrust the ARD 202 with the Kudumbasree

or to any other Society for the smooth functioning of the retails shop. In the

Food Advisory Vigilance Committee conducted at Punnayurkulam on

17.11.2013 and in the Grama Sabha in which ARD 202 comes in, the matter

was discussed and it was decided to entrust ARD to the licensee himself. The

licensee V.Shaji had also filed W.P.(C)No.26402/2012 before this Court, in

which this Court directed the respondent to take a decision within 3 months

and pursuant to the same, final report was submitted by the Taluk Supply

Officer, Chavakkad regarding the functioning of ARD 202, wherein it is stated

that there is no sufficient evidence to prove allegations of the petitioner as

against the licensee of ARD 202.

7. Earlier, on 21.01.2013 during the meeting of Grama Sabhas, the

members of the concerned ward of Punnayurkulam Panchayath, in which ARD

202 is functioning, had collected the opinion of the card holders about the

functioning of the retail shop and card holders gave consent to restore ARD

202 to the licensee once again. The Panchayath Food Advisory Samithi also

discussed the matter and supported the decision. Accordingly, the Taluk

Supply Officer, Chavakkad, recommended restoration of the license of ARD 202

to Sri.V.Shaji.

8. It is submitted that on the basis of the report submitted by the Taluk

Supply Officer, Chavakkad, 4th respondent took steps for finalising the

proceedings pursuant to the suspension of the retail shop and accordingly,

charge memo was issued to the licensee on 05.02.2013 and thereafter he had

submitted his explanation on 11.02.2013. The 4 th respondent conducted a

hearing and Sri.Rajesh. A.Nair and Sri.Ramachandran Penakam belonging to

the petitioner organisation was heard on 22.02.2013. No material was

produced by the petitioner to prove the malpractices alleged against the

licensee of the retail shop ARD 202. Hence, considering the totality of the facts

and mainly on the basis of lack of evidence, the suspension was revoked and

the licensee of ARD 202 was restored as per proceedings dated 05.03.2013 of

the 4th respondent, after forfeiting the entire security amount of Rs.2,100/-

from the ARD.

8. Regarding the allegations submitted by the petitioner to the Taluk

Supply Officer, Thrissur, in respect of non disbursement of rationed articles to

one Indira coming under ARD 310, Taluk Supply Officer, Thrissur had

conducted enquiry and submitted his report on 25.01.2012. In the said

enquiry report it has been reported that the licensee had issued rationed

articles eligible to Smt.Indira and she had withdrawn her compliant against

ARD 310 at Kodannur. It is also reported that Smt.Indira had also received two

months rationed articles from ARD 310 run by one Sundaran against which

earlier there was complaint that it was denied to her.

9. Therefore, it is submitted by the 4th respondent that the 4th

respondent as well as the subordinate officials are taking all possible steps for

preventing the black marketing of rationed articles and to see that proper

quantity of foodgrains are distributed through rations shops without shortage

in weight and with proper bills to the card holders. It is also evident from the

counter affidavit that adequate steps are taken for periodic inspection of the

ration shops in order to find out whether any malpractices are resorted to by

the licensees. It is further undertaken that if any complaints are received,

appropriate and stringent action would be taken against the licensees in

accordance with the provisions of the Rationing Order and other laws in force.

10. Perused the pleadings and materials on record and heard learned

Senior Government Pleader Sri.Tek Chand and Smt.Moly Jacob for the Kerala

State Civil Supplies Corporation.

11. The discussion made above would make it clear that petitioner has

raised certain apprehensions in Exts.P1 and P2 complaints in regard to the

conduct of ARD Nos.202 and 310 in Thrissur District, apart from making certain

general allegations that the ration shops are not functioning properly and are

also indulged in illegal activities, thus depriving the ration card holders from

getting the complete benefit from the ration shops. However, from the counter

affidavit filed by the District Supply Officer, Chavakkad, it is clear and evident

that on the basis of the representations submitted by the petitioner and one

member of the petitioner association, enquiries were conducted, the licence of

the ration shop dealers were suspended and found that there are no

irregularities so as to interfere with the conduct of the ration shop by the

authorised dealers. It is also undertaken in the counter affidavit, if any genuine

complaints are received, that would be taken care of by the District Supply

Officer.

12. In view of the submissions in the counter affidavit, we are satisfied

that the 4th respondent had taken adequate action in view of the complaints

made by the petitioner and has made due enquiries, examined the ration card

holders and has arrived at the conclusion that the apprehensions raised by the

petitioner against the authorised ration dealers have no foundation or basis.

We are also satisfied with respect to the undertaking made by the District

Supply Officer that adequate action would be taken, in case of any complaint

made by any aggrieved person.

13. In that view of the matter, we do not think the petitioner is not

entitled to get any relief in view of the subsequent development discernible

from the counter affidavit filed by the District Supply Officer. Since there is a

clear undertaking made by the District Supply Officer that he would take

appropriate action on receipt of any genuine complaint, we do not think any

direction is required and recording the said undertaking and the submissions

made in the counter affidavit, the writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

S.MANIKUMAR

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

                                                   SHAJI P.CHALY

smv                                                     JUDGE


                            APPENDIX

PEITIONERS EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1            A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FROM A
                      MEMBER OF THE PETITIONER ORGANISATION TO
                      THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 12.10.2011.

EXHIBIT P2            A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FROM A
                      MEMBER OF THE PETITIONER ORGANISATION TO
                      THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3            TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT FROM THE EMS SPPED
                      POST SERVICES TO THE MEMBER OF PETITIONER
                      ORGANISATION DATED 15.10.2011.

EXHIBIT P4            A TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE EMS
                      SPEED POST SERVICES TO THE MEMBER OF
                      PETITIONER ORGANISATION DATED 15.10.2011.

EXHIBIT P5            A TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE EMS
                      SPEED POST SERVICES TO THE MEMBER OF
                      PETITIONER ORGANISATION DATED 15.10.2011.

EXHIBIT P6            A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FROM THE
                      DISTRICT SECRETARY OF PUCL TO THE
                      RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 DATED 6.2.2010.

EXHIBIT P6(a)         A TRUE COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF
                      EXHIBIT P6 REPRESENTATION.