Allowed

Rajinder Kumar v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC18 May 2012CWP/15255/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenging suspension of essential commodities supply due to F.I.R. registration. Supreme Court found suspension arbitrary, absent stock verification, and violated natural justice. Writ accepted, order set aside, supply directed to resume.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order setting aside; direction to respondents to resume supply to the petitioner immediately.

Rajinder Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Anr. — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

C.W.P. No.15255 of 2011 -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶3

C.W.P. No.15255 of 2011 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : 18.5.2012

¶4

Rajinder Kumar PETITIONER

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

State of Haryana and another

¶7

RESPONDENTS

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER

¶9

Present:Shri Abhishek Sethi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs.Sushma Chopra, Additional A.G. Haryana.

¶10

MAHESH GROVER, J.

¶11

The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondents vide which the supply to his public distribution retail outlet (ration-depot) has been suspended on the premise that F.I.R. No.53 dated 13.3.2011 under sections 420,406 I.P.C. and Sections 7,10,55 of the E.C. Act at Police Station Israna stands registered against him. The petitioner who holds a licence to run a ration depot to distribute the essential commodities, was accused of indulging in black-marketing when secret information was received by the S.H.O. Police Station Israna, that if a raid was conducted, a truck of kerosene would be unloading kerosene in drums and then carried away to the house of one Rohtash. On a raid being conducted, the

¶12

C.W.P. No.15255 of 2011 -2-

¶13

truck was found at the spot and the kerosene was being off-loaded. Three persons present at the spot engaged in the process of off-loading were apprehended at the spot. One of them being the petitioner. Five cans were recovered, four of which contained 220 litres of kerosene oil and the 5^th which was in the process of being filled up, had about 160 litres of kerosene oil. After following the process of law, the cans were sealed and the petitioner was accused of having violated the provisions of Sections 420,406 I.P.C. and Sections 7,10,55 of the E.C. Act. By virtue of Annexure P-2, monthly supply to the depot was suspended with immediate effect till the decision by the Court which was likely to be seized of the matter pursuant to the registration of the F.I.R. against the petitioner.

¶14

The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Panipat which was also declined on the ground that the F.I.R. stood registered against the petitioner. The petitioner questioned this on the ground that merely because an F.I.R. had been registered against him without there being any further material to suggest that he had violated the terms of the license, could not result in cessation of the supply to his depot. He further contended that no show cause notice was ever issued to him before passing of the impugned order Annexure P-2 against him and this fact was specifically raised before the Appellate Authority but not dealt with.

¶15

Upon notice of motion having been issued, the respondents filed their reply. The solitary explanation given is that because an F.I.R. has been registered against the petitioner, therefore, till the time the same is decided, the supply to his depot has been ceased.

¶16

Since the petitioner had raised this specific plea in the petition that his shop was situated in a narrow place where the truck cannot reach, therefore, it was for this reason that the kerosene was being off-loaded at a place of some distance from where the petitioner would have transported the kerosene oil to his

¶17

C.W.P. No.15255 of 2011 -3-

¶18

shop for distribution. This fact has been admitted by the respondents in reply to para-6 of the petition. But subsequently, it has been stated that since the kerosene oil was being off-loaded at a place other than the shop of the petitioner, it necessarily led to an inference that he was indulging in black-marketing of the kerosene oil.

¶19

This Court on 23.4.2012, after noticing the controversy, had expressed its dis-satisfaction in so far as the affidavit filed by the respondents was concerned and it directed a better affidavit to be filed which would indicate the reasons for suspension of the license of the petitioner more specifically because the reply on record did not indicate any corresponding exercise undertaken by the respondents regarding checking of the stock register of the supply of kerosene oil to justify the action of suspension/cessation of the supply to the depot of the petitioner.

¶20

Today, when the matter was taken up, another affidavit has been filed by the respondents but unfortunately, the concern of the Court which was expressed vide order dated 23.4.2012, has not been appreciated by the respondents and the reply which is similar to the one which is on record, has been filed.

¶21

It is evident that the respondents have nothing else to say and have no better justification or explanation to offer except to say that the supplies have been stopped only on the ground of registration of the F.I.R. against the petitioner.

¶22

On due consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that the action of the respondents in suspending the supplies to the petitioner is unjustified and not short of arbitrariness. There is not even a whisper regarding the exercise undertaken by any of the officials to verify the stocks available with the petitioner with the corresponding sales and distribution made by the petitioner. It is not understandable as to how such a conclusion regarding the petitioner indulging in black-marketing can be sustained without verification of the stock register and the

¶23

C.W.P. No.15255 of 2011 -4-

¶24

corresponding sales.

¶25

To the mind of this Court, it could have only been on the basis of aberrations noticed during the process of verification that such a charge could be sustained.

¶26

Evidently, the respondents have not collected any such material against the petitioner and have merely fallen back on the registration of the F.I.R. against him to stop the supplies to the depot run by the petitioner. No violation of any terms of the license has been established and merely because an F.I.R. has been registered, would not ipso-facto result in the cessation of the supplies to the petitioner more particularly when facts speak loud and clear that the shop of the petitioner was situated at a place not accessible to heavy vehicle which made the off-loading of the supply at a place far away from the shop of the petitioner unavoidable. Besides, the principles of natural justice have clearly been violated as no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and rather, the respondents have tried to wish it away by saying that it was hardly necessary for them to issue notice in view of the fact that an F.I.R. stood registered against the petitioner.

¶27

The Court does not subscribe to this view of the respondents being unjusticeable and also for the reason that the law mandates that the observance of principles of natural justice is sine qua non to the passing of an adverse order against a person.

¶28

Having regard to the aforesaid, the petition is accepted and the impugned order is set aside. The respondents are directed to resume the supplies to the petitioner. Before parting with the order, the Court expresses its deep disapproval regarding the conduct of the respondents who despite the concern shown by this Court in its order dated 23.4.2012 have chosen not to remedy their affidavit by merely reiterating what was stated earlier.

¶29

It is painful to notice that such affidavits are filed after due approval

¶30

C.W.P. No.15255 of 2011 -5-

¶31

by the officials of the office of Advocate General, Haryana without even any reflection of any application of mind.

¶32

May 18, 2012 GD

¶33

(MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE

¶34

WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO

Rajinder Kumar v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajinder Kumar v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Realtech Construction Private Limited and Anr. Vs Fame India Limited

M/S Induction Furnace Association of North India Vs Punjab State Power Corp. Ltd. (Pspcl)&Ors

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

Jitender & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sukhjinder Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Avtar Singh Vs Punjab State Electricity Board and Ors.