Dismissed

Mahinder Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC9 May 2012CWP/13977/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the cancellation of the petitioner's public distribution fair price shop license due to irregularities including tampered weights and measures. The court dismissed the petition, finding the impugned order sustainable as there was no procedural violation, and granted liberty to put the petitioner on probation if the authority desired.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with liberty granted to respondents to evaluate the petitioner's case afresh and put him on probation if desired.

Mahinder Singh Vs State of Har… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CWP No. 13977 of 2011(O&M) 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CWP No. 13977 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision : 09.05.2012

Mohinder Singh

....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER

¶10

Present : Mr. Vinod Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner

¶11

Ms. Sushma Chopra, Addl. AG, Haryana

¶12

MAHESH GROVER, J.

¶13

The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders Annexure P-4 and P- 5 which have the effect of cancellation of his licence to run a public distribution fair price shop.

¶14

On 12.4.2011 the ration shop being run by the petitioner was checked and numerous irregularities were found including the ones which indicated that he had tampered with the weights and measures lying in his shop. He had also not displayed the rates and stock board. The BPL and AAY list was not found affixed and was found to be tampered upon examination.

¶15

The District Food & Supplies Controller agreed with the observations of the inspecting team and while exercising the power conferred under Section 13(1) of the Public Distribution System (Supply and Control) Order 2009 passed order for cancellation of the PDS Licence/Depot of the petitioner. In appeal the orders were upheld.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends with reference to

¶17

CWP No. 13977 of 2011(O&M) 2

¶18

the report of the office of the Weights and Measures, Kaithal who had checked the weights and measures lying in the shop of the petitioner on 18.11.2010 and had certified them to be without any aberrations.

¶19

On the strength of this learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the findings recorded in the impugned orders are incorrect and unsustainable.

¶20

Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand pointed out to the various irregularities found at the time of inspection which have been appended to the reply as Annexure R-1 to contend that keeping in view the numerous irregularities including the one which has been noticed in the impugned order, the impugned order cancelling the licence of the petitioner is justified in the set of circumstances.

¶21

On due consideration of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the respondents have not been able to deal with the entire issue in a holistic manner. When number of irregularities were pointed out by the inspecting staff it was incumbent upon the District Food & Supplies Controller to deal with them in piecemeal. Even though cancellation of the licence of the petitioner only on one of the grounds is very well justified but noticing that number of irregularities were found, it should have been obligatory upon the competent authority to deal with each one of them, moreso, when the petitioner had been given a personal hearing and he has submitted his reply. However, perusal of the reply of the petitioner to the show cause notice, which was appended to the reply filed by A.K.Gaur, Deputy Director, Food & Supplies Department, Haryana, Chandigarh (Annexure R-3) reveals that petitioner had not offered any explanation regarding the irregularities including the one which has been more

¶22

CWP No. 13977 of 2011(O&M) 3

¶23

prominently noticed in the impugned order regarding the weights and measures having been tampered with. The petitioner has merely offered to show a receipt of weights and measures instruments without explaining as to how they were “wrenched and pressed”.

¶24

The Court does not find any legal infirmity in the impugned orders as no violation of any procedure has been shown. Whether or not these irregularities which were noticed existed or not is a difficult proposition for this Court to answer in exercise of its power under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, moreso, when there is understandably a denial to all these.

¶25

In these circumstances, the Court has no option but to lean in favour of the report of the inspecting staff which has been upheld by the competent authority under the law, for the simple reason that this is not a case of mala fide even though an attempt has been made to say that the respondents were interesting in allotting the depot to someone else. There is however no subjective material on record to establish this fact and none of the officers have been impleaded by name who according to the petitioner would be interested in doing so.

¶26

For the aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is held to be without any merit and the same is hereby dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the respondents to evaluate the case of the petitioner afresh and to put him on probation, if they so desire, by giving him an opportunity to rectify and remedy his conduct. This, however, shall be the sole discretion of the respondents.

¶27

(Mahesh Grover) Judge

¶28

May 9, 2012 rekha

Mahinder Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahinder Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagtar Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Khadi Sewa Sangh Vs Haryana State Khadi & Village Industries Bo. & Ors.

P S E B Vs Surindra Steel Rolling and General Mills and Ors.

Manmohan Singh and Ors. Vs Financial Commissioner, Pb and Ors.

Inder Singh Vs Chairman Bar Council of Bar Association, Chd & Anr.

Atam Swaroop Vs State of Haryana & Ors.