M.B. Thimmegowda vs The Commissioner, The Deputy Commissioner, The Thasildar and Puttaswamy @ Moganna

Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.—Petitioner has sought for a direction to quash the order at Annexure-D, dated 13.3.2013, passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the order at Annexure-E, dated 17.6.2013, passed by the appellate authority. The records reveal that the petitioner is running Fair Price Depot under the authorization granted by the second respondent. Such authorization is granted under the provisions of the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1992 (''1992 Order'' for short) Respondent No. 4 made an application to the petitioner under the provisions of RTI Act seeking certain information relating to the records maintained by Fair Price Depot being run by the petitioner. However, such information is not provided by the petitioner. Hence, complaint came to be filed by the 4th respondent before the jurisdictional Tahsildar, who in turn issued notice as per Annexure-A, dated 17.2.2012, calling upon the petitioner to furnish certain records. The petitioner has replied to the said show-cause as per Annexure-C, dated 24.5.2012 intimating the Tahsildar that while coming back from Bangalore to Channapatna, he has lost the records during transit and in that regard a complaint is also filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, appeal came to be filed before the Deputy Commissioner, since no information granted. The Deputy Commissioner having found that the petitioner is assigning contradictory reasons for not producing the records, concluded that the petitioner is purposely delaying in the matter. The Deputy Commissioner, thereafter suspended the license granted in favour of the petitioner. Such order of the suspension is questioned by the petitioner before the appellate authority, who once again on facts has concluded that the petitioner has indulged in various irregularities in distribution of essential commodities and therefore, he has not produced the records purposely. However, the appellate authority thought it fit to direct the Deputy Commissioner to conduct the enquiry before taking final decision in the matter. The orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the appellate authority are called in question in this writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Deputy commissioner has no jurisdiction to suspend the authorization granted in favour of the petitioner, inasmuch as the petitioner has not violated the terms and conditions stipulated in the authorization issued in his favour. Thus, according to him, these proceedings should be quashed.

The writ petition is opposed by the learned Government Advocate by contending that the Fair Price Depot is the institution established by the State Government under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act and the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1992 (''1992 Order'' for short) and therefore, it is incumbent on the part of the petitioner to maintain records as per law. There cannot be any dispute that authorization is granted in favour of the petitioner as per Clause (3) of ''1992 Order''. Such authorization stipulates certain terms and conditions. If any of the conditions or authorization are violated, the order of cancellation of authorization can be made under Clause (12) of ''1992 Order''. One of the terms and conditions of the authorization is to maintain the accounts properly. In the matter on hand, the accounts maintained by the petitioner are not produced by him either before the Tahsildar or before the Deputy commissioner though directed pursuant to the application filed by respondent No. 4. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has not violated the terms and conditions of the authorization, on the contrary the petitioner has taken contradictory stand for not producing the records. The petitioner has assigned the reason that all the records are with his advocate at Bangalore to be filed in the writ petition; the second reason assigned by the petitioner is that he has kept the said records in his relative''s house and the third reason is that the petitioner has lost the records while coming from Bangalore to Channapatna near Taluka Office situated at Sathanur Circle. The fourth reason assigned is that the petitioner has lost the records during transit in the bus. These contradictory statements of the petitioner have compelled the authorities to conclude against the petitioner. If the petitioner has really maintained records/accounts properly, he would not have failed to produce the records before the appropriate authorities.

In view of the same, no interference is called for. Hence, writ petition fails and accordingly the same stands dismissed.