Maruti Yuvaka Sangha vs The State of Karnataka and Others

A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 23.07.2011 passed by the first respondent in Revision Petition No. FCS 20 ECA 2005 at Annexure-C to the petition. The petitioner is also seeking for mandamus to direct the first respondent to reject the revision petition filed by the fifth respondent. The petitioner-Sangha had applied for grant of license to run the fair price shop at Magadi Village. The authorization to run the same was issued in the year, 1982. When this was the position, the Food Inspector attached to the second respondent inspected the premises on 19.09.2002. At that point, it was noticed that 4.9 quintals of Ragi was kept in a room attached to the fair price shop. The said place was not mentioned as the place of business in the license. A report was submitted to the Tahsildar on 24.09.2002. Based on such report, the first respondent had passed an order dated 11.10.2002 suspending the license granted to the petitioner, a show cause notice was also issued and subsequently, the second respondent by the order dated 17.02.2003 imposed the penalty of Rs. 1,000/-. The fifth respondent however assailed the said action in the revision filed under Clause 20 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1992. The first respondent has thereafter, by the impugned order dated 23.07.2011 directed the Deputy Commissioner to reconsider the proceedings after examining the cardholders and thereafter come to a conclusion in the matter. The said order is assailed in the instant petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the first respondent at the outset was not justified in entertaining the revision filed by the fifth respondent. It is also his contention that the Revisional Authority has taken into consideration the aspects which were not the grounds raised by the fifth respondent and therefore, such order could not have been passed. It is his further contention that when the Deputy Commissioner at the first instance had taken note of all aspects of the matter and did not find any major irregularity except that the said quantity of Ragi had been kept in the adjoining room, the Revisional Authority should have accepted the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, whereby the fine of Rs. 1,000/- had been imposed and the matter had been closed. In that view, it is contended that the order impugned is not justified and is liable to be quashed.

The learned counsel for the respondents including the learned Government Advocate would however seek to justify the order by referring to the nature of consideration that has been made by the first respondent. In that regard, it is contended that the authority has taken note of the circumstance and that the food grains which was required for public distribution had been misappropriated and therefore, the manner in which the Deputy Commissioner has imposed the penalty of Rs. 1,000/- was not justified and all that the Revisional Authority has directed is to reconsider the matter where the petitioner in any event would have the opportunity of putting forth his contention and the Deputy Commissioner would thereafter pass orders in accordance with law.

In the light of the above, the fact that the proceedings were initiated on the basis that the 4.9 quintals of Ragi which was given for public distribution was not kept in the premises for which the license was issued and was kept elsewhere was taken into consideration based on the report submitted to the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner on accepting the same has passed the order imposing the fine of Rs. 1,000/- after noticing the same to be a irregularity. In that light, a perusal of the order impugned herein would disclose that the first respondent had adverted to this aspect of the matter. Even if the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the first respondent has gone into all aspects of the matter and it was not justified is also kept in view, what is necessary to be noticed is that while presently coming to the conclusion that the matter is to be reconsidered by the Deputy Commissioner, the first respondent has also taken note of the instances that have taken place earlier only to take note of the fact that the present contention that the Ragi stored in the adjoining room cannot be taken as a stray instance or a innocuous situation, where; the Deputy Commissioner has treated the same lightly to impose the fine of Rs. 1,000/- and absolve the petitioner in such manner.

In that view, if the order impugned is perused, the first respondent has also taken into consideration the fact that when 4.9 quintals of Ragi meant for public distribution system was not available in the premises, but was kept elsewhere, an appropriate consideration to take into consideration as to whether the cardholders actually had any grievance against the petitioner was also to be gone into by the Deputy Commissioner. It is in that regard, the Revisional Authority has indicated that the cardholders be examined. However, considering the nature of the enquiry to the extent of the first respondent directing that not less than 100 cardholders be examined by the Deputy Commissioner is not justified. The nature of enquiry to be made by the Deputy Commissioner should be allowed to the discretion of the Deputy Commissioner to seek such evidence before him and thereafter to come to a conclusion. Hence, though I see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the first respondent, whereby the matter has been sent to the Deputy Commissioner to re-enquire into the matter, the specification indicated by the first respondent to do it in a particular manner and to examine particular number of cardholders is not justified. To the said extent, the order stands modified. The Deputy Commissioner shall however in his discretion seek for such evidence from the parties and thereafter hold the enquiry and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible, but not later than two months from the date on which a certified copy of this order is furnished to the Deputy Commissioner. The alternate arrangement which had continued till this day shall continue to remain in force until the enquiry is concluded by the Deputy Commissioner.

In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of. No costs.