Mahathma Gandhi Women Self Help Group vs The District Collector, The Special Tahsildar (Civil Supplies), The President, Ambaram Palayam Panchayat and The Block Development Officer (Rural)

K. Mohan Ram, J.—The above writ petition has been filed to quash the impugned proceedings of the first respondent in Na.Ka. No.

2518/2005/D2 dated 08.12.200 5 and that of the second respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka. No. 26 666/05E1 dated 16.12.2005.

The relevant facts, as culled out from the affidavit filed in support of the above writ petition, are as follows:

(i) The State Government has sponsored self employment under the '' Golden Jubilee Village Self Employment Scheme'' to uplift the status of the

rural women and permitted the formation of women self help groups all over the State. The petitioner group has been formed in the year 2000-

2001 and Smt. K.Mumtaj, the deponent of the affidavit was elected as the President/Head of the group. The petitioner underwent training in Fair

Price Shops and thereafter was running a Fair Price Shop from 2002. According to the petitioner, the Civil Supplies authorities periodically

checked the functioning of the Fair Price Shop and also made auditing but they have not found fault in the functioning of the Fair Price Shop.

(ii) As per the averments in the affidavit, the third respondent out of envy started giving trouble to the petitioner through the fourth respondent. The

fourth respondent issued a notice dated 26.07.20005 calling upon the petitioner to submit the accounts and the petitioner submitted current

accounts and the minutes book to the fourth respondent. The third respondent started giving trouble to the petitioner which necessitated the filing of

the compliant to the police on 19.11 .2005. According to the petitioner, she explained the situation to respondents 1, 2 and 4, about the attitude of

the husband of the third respondent and the third respondent. But no action was taken. While so, the petitioner received an order dated

08.12.2005 from the first respondent cancelling the permission already granted to run the Fair Price Shop and directing the Primary Agricultural

Cooperative Bank, Singanallur Branch to takeover the shop without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to put forth her case.

(iii) A representation dated 12.12.2005 was sent to the first respondent, but the same was not considered. But the second respondent consequent

to the impugned order of the first respondent dated 08.12.200 5 passed an order dated 16.12.2005 directing the petitioner to handover the Fair

Price Shop to the Secretary, Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank, Singanallur. Aggrieved by that the above writ petition has been filed.

(iv) The main grounds on which the impugned proceedings are challenged are as follows:

a) The impugned order has been passed by the first respondent at the instigation of the third and fourth respondents.

b) The civil supplies authorities have not found any fault either on the part of the petitioner or on the part of the deponent of the affidavit.

c) There are no complaints from the Civil Supplies Authorities or fro the consumers.

d) Respondents 1 and 2 have passed the proceedings without application of mind and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner and therefore

the impugned proceedings are against the principles of natural justice.

e) The impugned order does not contain any reasons and it is void and ab-initio.

The second respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit refuting all the allegations contained in the affidavit. The averments in the counter

affidavit filed by the first respondent are set out below. A complaint was received from the third respondent on 20.06.200 5 alleging that the Ration

Shop conducted by the petitioner was not regularly opened and functioned and standard items are not being supplied to the public. The fourth

respondent issued a notice to the President and the members of the Self Help Group on 21.06.2005, asking them to be present on 27.06.2005 for

an enquiry. But the notice was refused to be received by the President of the petitioner. Again a notice through RPAD was sent on 26.07.2005

which was received by the deponent of the affidavit on 02.08.2005, but no reply was received. On 20.11.2005, the third respondent sent further

complaint to the first respondent and others. A complaint also was lodged against Mrs. Mumtaj and her husband. The Sub-Collector, Pollachi

personally made an inspection of the Mahatma Gandhi Ladies Self Help Group on various complaints received by him and found shortage of stock

in the ration items. Hence, he imposed fine on the persons responsible for the shop and also recommended to the first respondent to take

appropriate action.

Further on 23.11.2005, the fourth respondent made a local enquiry about the petitioner and a report also was submitted. 3 members of the

Ladies Self Help Group are residing out of the jurisdiction and only 4 members are residing in the village and they too have informed that they are

not aware of the functioning of the Self Help Group, because the president is dealing with the matters of the group as her own property and as per

her whims and fancies. Pursuant to the enquiry made by the fourth respondent, it was learnt that the President has not conducted weekly meetings,

income and expenditure discussion and bank loan repayment matters etc., Even the President was not showing the records to the other members

of the group and hence the members have also filed complaints against her. The officials of the Canara Bank, Singanallur, where the petitioner is

having Bank operations, informed through their letter that the Self Help Group is not functioning properly.

It is the further contention of the first respondent that on the basis of the enquiry made on 08.12.2005, the order issued to the petitioner-Self

Help Group to conduct Ration Shop was cancelled and the Singanallur Branch Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank was ordered to takeover

the Ambarampalayam part-time Ration Shop. Pursuant to that, the second respondent has given permission to the said Cooperative Bank to

conduct the Ration Shop as per his letter dated 21.12.2005 and the said Co-operative Bank is conducting the Ration Shop from 22 .12.2005 in

Government Building in Ambarampalayam. The petitioner refused to handover the balance of the items and locked the shop in her possession.

While that being the factual position, the writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

The second respondent has filed a separate counter affidavit. According to the second respondent, inspite of issue of the notice, the petitioner

did not come forward to hand over the stock of the Fair Price Shop and also not opened the shop, which necessitated the opening of the shop at

Ambarampalayam at the Government Building. The shop was opened on 22.12.2005 and it is functioning from 22.12.2005. According to the

second respondent suppressing this fact the petitioner has filed the above writ petition.

It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner abruptly closed the shop from 12.12.2005, which caused great sufferings to the

common public. According to the second respondent, since the Fair Price Shop was opened on 22.12.2005 itself i.e. before the order passed by

this Court on 23.12.2005, the writ petition has become infructuous.

The third respondent has filed a separate counter affidavit denying the various allegations levelled against him by the petitioner in the affidavit. It

is further stated that the second respondent handed over the possession of ration distribution shop to the Singanallur Primary Agricultural

Cooperative Bank on 22.12.2005.

The fourth respondent has filed a separate counter affidavit denying the various averments contained in the affidavit filed by the petitioner and

reiterating the various averments contained in the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent. It is stated in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit

that on 23.11.2005, the fourth respondent made a local enquiry about the Mahathma Gandhi Ladies Self Help Group and submitted the report. As

per his report, 3 members of the Self Help Group are residing out of the jurisdiction and only 4 members are residing in the village for which the

group was formed and this 4 members explained that they are not aware of the functioning of the Self Help Group, because the President of the

Self Help Group is dealing the matters of the group as her own property and as per her whims and fancies.

The fourth respondent has also stated that the President is not conducting the weekly meetings, income and expenditure discussion and bank

loan repayment matters etc. The president was not showing the records for the perusal of the other members of the group and hence they have

filed complaints against the President of the said Group. It is specifically stated in the counter affidavit that though the Ration Shop is conducted by

the Singanallur Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank as per the order dated 22.12.2005, the petitioner refused to hand over the balance of the

items and locked the shop in her possession and the same was informed by the Block Development Officer to the Project Officer of the District

Rural Development Agency.

A common reply affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 to 4 has been filed by the petitioner. In the reply affidavit it is stated

that the Sub-Collector Pollachi did not inspected the Fair Price Shop, but the second respondent alone inspected the Fair Price Shop. Though Mr.

Kadarkarai, learned counsel for the petitioner denied the imposition of fine at the first instance, in the reply affidavit it has been stated as follows:

the letter dated 12.11.2005 speaks of the fact that there was a shortage to the extent of 2 kilograms of sugar and the said loss had been

compensated at the same instance by payment of fine of Rs. 27/-.

It is stated in the reply affidavit that the petitioner is made to undergo Double Jeopardy, since on the one hand she has paid a fine of Rs. 27/-

towards compensation for the said shortage of sugar, while on the other hand, the first respondent has passed the impugned order. The various

allegations raised in the counter affidavit filed by the respective respondents have been disputed. The allegations have been made against the

following persons, viz., the fourth respondent, the husband of the third respondent, Clerk Eswaran, Counselor Selvaraj and one Counselor Balu''s

son Chinnu alleging that they have threatened the members of the Self Help Group to come away from the Group and 3 members under threat

signed in blank papers. It is the further contention of the petitioner that after the status quo was issued by this Court, the petitioner was denied the

supply of ration items meant for distribution to the public and therefore the question of refusal to hand over the stock to the respondent will not

arise and malafides have been alleged against the third respondent.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respective counsel for the respondents.

The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions raised in the affidavit and in the reply affidavit. The counsel for the respective

respondents reiterated the contentions raised in their respective counter affidavits. The original file has been produced for the perusal of the Court.

A perusal of the files show that a complaint dated 23.11.2005 was received from the public of Ambarampalayam village containing allegations

against Mrs. Mumtaj, the President of the petitioner''s Women Self Help Group. Four members belonging to the Mahatma Gandhi Womens Self

Help Group have given a written complaint. The communication received from the Canara Bank Singanallur Branch dated 24.11.2005 confirms

the averments contained in the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent. In the said communication, it is stated that the said Self Help Group is

not functioning properly and is not conducting the regular meetings and the account is stagnant for several years and the account is overdrawn and

the amounts have not been cleared. The File also contain a communication dated 07.12.2006 sent by the Canara Bank Singanallur Branch to the

fourth respondent herein, wherein it is stated that the petitioner''s Self Help Group is not properly functioning and not transacting the Banking

business during the period 12.12.2004 to 01.02.2006. The file also contains the report sent by the fourth respondent dated 23.11.2005 to the

Project Officer, Coimbatore - 18, in respect of the functioning of the petitioner''s Self Help Group. In fact the file also contains the paper cuttings

dated 07.11.2002 which contain news items regarding the irregularities said to have been committed by the petitioner''s Self Help Group and the

file also contains a copy of the First Information Report against Mrs. MumtaJ.

Though the proceedings of the first respondent does not contain the details of the various complaints received against the petitioner and its

President Mrs. Mumtaj, the file, as referred to above, contains serious allegations against the petitioner and its President. Mr. Kadarkarai, learned

counsel for the petitioner disputed the various allegations made against the petitioner and went to the extent of submitting that signatures were

obtained from the members of the Self Help Group in blank papers and complaints have been fabricated against the petitioner''s Self Help Groups.

These are disputed questions of facts. There is absolutely no arbitrariness as far as the impugned proceedings are concerned.

It is not open to this Court to interfere in minute details, except on grounds of mala fides or extreme arbitrariness. Though, allegations of

malafides have been made against the third respondent, he or she has not been impleaded in his or her personal capacity and as such the

allegations of mala fidies cannot be entertained. Further, it is not established as to how the third respondent could have prevailed upon the first

respondent to issue the impugned proceedings. It is settled law that the scope of interference by this Court in such matters lies only within very

narrow limits, such as, where there is a clear violation of any statutory or constitutional provision, or extreme arbitrariness in the Wednesbury

sense.

In my considered view, none of the said vitiating factors have been found in the impugned proceedings. Too many disputed questions of fact

have been placed before this Court, which cannot be gone into in the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The

averments contained in the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent are fully supported by the materials available in the file produced before

this Court. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned proceedings. Accordingly, the above writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

Consequently, the connected WPMP is closed.