Kerala HC quashed orders penalizing a rice shop licensee for alleged stock variations, ruling that authorities failed to follow mandatory cent per cent weighment of entire stock as required by the Civil Supplies Manual before signing inspection reports.
Ext.P3, P5 and P8 orders directing realisation of price and forfeiture of security deposit were quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA
SATURDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/29TH BHADRA, 1936
WP(C).No. 22000 of 2009 (T)
PETITIONER(S):
B.SANTHOSH KUMAR, LICENSEE, AWD NO.T-16, NANDIYODE, NEDUMANGAD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN
RESPONDENT(S):
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES (B)DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
4. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
5. THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI GIKKU JACOB
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 22000 of 2009 (T)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.A TO JUDGE
LSN
P.V. ASHA, J.
W.P.(C) No. 22000 OF 2009
Dated this the 20th day of September, 2014.
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is the licensee of AWD No.T-18 in Nedumangad Taluk. An inspection team headed by 4th respondent visited the AWD of the petitioner on 12.06.2008. In the inspection it was detected that there was an excess of 22.63 quintal of APL boiled rice, shortage of 4.19 quintal in the stock of APL raw rice and shortage of 18.37 quintal in the stock of APL wheat. The inspecting team prepared a mahazar accordingly.
was made, taking loads received later alone. According to petitioner, without considering his explanation, the 3rd respondent issued a memo of charges to him on 26-6-2008, based on the report of inspection, alleging violation of terms of agreement and of the
2
W.P.(C) No. 22000 OF 2009
instructions from the Department. Petitioner submitted his explanation as per Ext P2 on 1-7-2008 refuting the charges. The District Collector passed Ext.P3 order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The District Collector did not accept the explanation of the petitioner and issued orders directing realisation of the price of the articles, to the extent of variation found in stock, apart from forfeiting the entire security deposit remitted by petitioner.
hearing the petitioner, the Government also rejected the revision petition, by Ext P8 order affirming the orders of the respondents 2 and 3, saying that Civil Supplies Manual contains only guidelines
W.P.(C) No. 22000 OF 2009
3
for inspecting officers for inspecting ration shops and Civil Supplies authorities are following Kerala Rationing order. It was further held that no interference was required since the petitioner acknowledged the stock statement prepared by the authorities.
W.P.(C) No. 22000 OF 2009
4
view that a decision cannot be taken regarding the total quantity of rice/articles by taking average of a few non- standardised bags. In that case, the Government set aside identical proceedings against the petitioner therein. According to the petitioner, the District Collector himself had followed the Government Order issued on 13.01.2003 (Ext.P7) in another identical case i.e in Ext P9 order and absolved the ration dealer on the ground that weighment of the entire stock was not done in accordance with the provisions contained in Kerala Civil Supplies Manual, according to which actual stock on hand at the time of inspection should be assured by cent percent physical weighment and no other weighment is acceptable. The District Collector issued orders directing the Taluk Supply Officer, Nedumangad, to re-store the licence issued in favour of one Smt.Nagamma in respect of AWD No.27. Petitioner submits that it is in his case alone that Government took an indiffirent stand and refused to consider his contention with reference to the order Ext.P7 and penalized him. Petitioner therefore, seeks to quash Ext.P3, P5 and P8 orders.
writ petition. According to them shortage/surplusage of articles was
W.P.(C) No. 22000 OF 2009
5
detected at the time of inspection conducted in the depot of the petitioner. The petitioner was present at the time of inspection and he put his signature in the mahazar. Therefore, it is stated that the petitioner has admitted the variation in the stock and he can not raise the contention regarding the weighment made. According to the respondents, they followed the procedure prescribed in the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966 and provision in the Kerala Civil Supplies Manual have no statutory force. It is also stated that the petitioner did not demand for weighment of entire stock at the time of inspection. The contention that petitioner put his signature in blank papers was also denied.
and the learned Govt Pleader and considered the pleadings and rival contentions.
W.P.(C) No. 22000 OF 2009
6
be observed at the time of inspection and verification of stock. The provisions if any, which provide for a different procedure, in the Kerala Rationing Order or in any other rules is neither brought to my notice at the time of hearing nor stated in the counter affidavit. The orders impugned i.e Ext P3, P5 or P8 also do not refer to the procedure to be followed as per the Rationing Order, for verification of stock. As per the orders produced by the petitioner - Ext.P7 issued by Government on 13-1-2008 as well as Ext.P9 order dated 18-4-2009 of the District Collector, para 7.01(2) and (5) of the Civil Supplies Manual are to be followed in respect of verification of stock, accordiing to which there should be cent percent weigment of the entire stock in hand and there is no other acceptable method. The respondents do not have a case that they followed that procedure. Even in Ext P8 order Govt admits that the provisions in Civil Suplies Manual are guidelines to be followed by all the inspecting officers of the department, though according to them the authorities in the Department are following Kerala Rationing Order. The only contention is that the petitioner put his signature in the mahazar in approval of the verification. The case of the petitioner is that he put his signature in blank paper on direction by 4th respondent. In the
W.P.(C) No. 22000 OF 2009
7
order Ext P7, Govt took the view that signature obtained, in a mahazar which is prepared without proper weighment is not valid. At any rate, there is no justification in penalising the petitioner on the ground of the signature, when admittedly, cent percent weigment of the entire stock, was not made by the respondents. Moreover, I find that the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in N.Sarojni v. District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram & Othrs, AIR 1999 KER 119, which was rendered, while considering an identical case, held that the procedure prescribed in para 7.01(2) and (5) are to followed for verification of stock, also supports the case of the petitioner.
In the above circumstances, I find that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in Ext.P3 by the District Collector as affirmed in Ext.P5 and P8 orders of Commissioner of Civil Supplies and Government are liable to be set aside and hence I quash the same.
Writ petition is allowed. There shall be no orders as to
cost.
P.V. ASHA, Judge
lsn
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned orders charging the petitioner with stock excess and shortage can be sustained when the inspection was conducted without mandatory cent per cent weighment of the entire stock as p
Whether the petitioner's signature on a mahazar prepared without proper weighment validates the proceedings against him for penalisation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
N.Sarojni v. District CollectorRelied on¶63
N.Sarojni v. District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram & Othrs, AIR 1999 KER 119 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 2 enactments
B.SANTHOSH KUMAR
STATE OF KERALA
THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, NEDUMANGAD
P.V. ASHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
