CWP No. 4055 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P.No. 4055 of 2007 Date of decision 30.1.2008 Kashmir Singh and others Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. I.D.Singla.Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Ashish Kapoor, Addl. AG Haryana for respondent nos. 1 and 2 Mr.Gaurav Mohunta, Advocate for respondent nos. 3 and 4 M.M.KUMAR, J. This petition has been filed by Kashmir Singh, Deepak Kumar and Jagga Singh under Article 226 of the Constitution with a prayer for issuance of directions to C.B.I. to hold investigation in the pilferage of kerosene oil alleging that it is not being supplied to the families which are residing in the area by respondent nos. 3 and 4 who are depot holders. It is claimed that petitioner nos. 1 and 3 are card holders and petitioner no. 2 is a member of Bhrashtachar Virodhi and Samajik Uthan Sanghthan. Allegations have been made that petitioner no. 2 has no gas connection but still the stamp of Double Barrel Connection (DBC) on the ration card has been affixed by the depot holder. It has further been claimed CWP No. 4055 of 2007 2 that no kerosene oil has been supplied to him. A photo copy of the ration card of Kashmir Singh has been placed on record as Annexure P.2. The same is sought to be examplified by placing on record other ration cards ( Annexures P.3 to P.7). There are allegations against respondent nos. 3 and 4 that they sell the kerosene oil and cooking gas in black market. In the written statement filed by respondent nos. 1 and 2 it is disclosed that the State Government is supplying essential commodities like kerosene oil, sugar, wheat, rice etc. to consumers through the Fair Price Shops under the Public Distribution System (PDS) Control Order, 2002. As per the policy the LPG gas connection holders are not entitled to kerosene oil through Fair Price Shops and in that regard instructions have been issued from time to time. On the basis of the grievance made in the petition that D.B.C. Stamp has been affixed, the respondents held an enquiry through the DFSC Sirsa. It has been found that stamp on ration card is as per the requirement and those card holders who are having LPG connection in their names. The depot holder respondent nos. 3 and 4 were also found to have charged excess amount as compared to the fixed rate and their security amount was forfeited. It has further been pointed out that kerosene oil is being distributed to card holders issued as per allocation and instructions issued by the Government. In para 4 of the written statement it has been pointed out that there is no evidence of pilferage of kerosene oil by respondent nos. 3 and 4. In para 5 it has been emphasised that there was allocation of 48 kilometers of kerosene oil in the month of January, 2007 issued by headquarter for Rania centre. The DFSC Sirsa ensured distribution @ 5 liters to non LPG (below poverty line (BPL) and Antodya Ann Yojana (AAY) Card holders). That was done in the presence of the CWP No. 4055 of 2007 3 Vigilance Committee constituted by the department as per headquarter instructions. In the reply filed by respondent nos. 3 and 4 it has been disclosed that petitioner nos. 1 and 3 did not authorise to file this petition either by signing any power or attorney or thumb marking the same. It has been pointed out that petitioner no. 2 is infact a depot holder and in order to pressurise respondent nos. 3 and 4 he has misused the process of this Court. It is claimed that petitioner no.2 has no locus standi to file the instant petition. The affidavits of petitioner nos. 1 and 3 have been place on record. It has further been disclosed in the preliminary submissions that petitioner no.2 who is self styled member of the Bhrashtachar Virodhi and Samajik Uthan Sangthathan is facing criminal proceedings in FIR No. 212 dated 29.6.1994 registered under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and in case FIR No. 403 registered under Sections 353, 332 , 506, 34 IPC. When we asked counsel for the petitioner as to how the instant petition on behalf of petitioner nos. 1 and 3 has been filed, learned counsel fairly stated that petitioner no.2 had approached him for filing of the petition which had thumb marks of petitioner nos. 1 and 3. Learned counsel also expressed ignorance that petitioner no.2 is a depot holder and is facing criminal charges. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, we are of the view that this petition is mis-use of the process of the Court. It is not expected that a writ petition would be filed on behalf of persons we do not wish to approach the Court merely by thumb marks. On account of the fact that learned counsel for the petitioner has very fairly conceded the factual position, we do not wish to go deep into the matter. We feel CWP No. 4055 of 2007 4 contended by recording our displeasure. We are further of the view that petitioner no. 2 who is a self styled member of the Bhrashtachar Virodhi and Samajik Uthan Sangthan whereas he is doing something to the contrary. Person like, petitioner no.2, is not worthy of his credit. Therefore, we dismiss the writ petition with costs to be paid by petitioner no.2 alone. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (T.P.S.Mann) 30 .1.2008 Judge okg