CIVIL REVISION NO.619 OF 2008 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 13, 2008 Mohan Lal .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others. ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. V. K. Jain, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Parshant Vashisht, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. This order will dispose of Civil Revision Nos.619 of 2008 (Mohan Lal Vs. State of Haryana and others), 620 of 2008 (Mahabir Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and others) and 782 of 2008 (Dharam Pal Vs. State of Haryana and others). The said revisions are directed against the order passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal, and up-held by the CIVIL REVISION NO.619 OF 2008 :{ 2 }: Additional District Judge, Karnal, declining the prayer of the petitioners for interim order under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The facts are being taken from Civil Revision No.619 of 2008. The petitioner is a depot holder. Wheat used to be distributed through the agencies of Confed on behalf of Food Corporation of India. Wheat was accordingly distributed from September 2004 to December 2004 for the people meant for Above Poverty Line (APL). This distribution was done through various depot holders as per the Target Public Distribution System. The wheat distributed through the depot holders was certified through a certificate issued by the Assistant Food and Supplies Officer. The stocks were also physically verified and so to the registers maintained in this regard. One Pawan Kumar filed a complaint to the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal, alleging that the wheat was not distributed and rather was sold in the open market in connivance with the officials of Food and Supplies Department and the enquiry was held by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Karnal. The petitioner- plaintiff was joined in the enquiry. He was asked to make a statement. The petitioner claims that he was threatened with false implication in a criminal case and his signatures obtained on blank papers. Accordingly, District Food and Supplies Controller, Raja Ram, has been implicated. On the basis of the enquiry, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice and thereafter order passed, terminating the licence and forfeiting his security. This order is CIVIL REVISION NO.619 OF 2008 :{ 3 }: impugned by the petitioner by filing a civil suit on the ground that the same is illegal, null and void and against the principles of natural justice. In the suit, he has filed an application for interim injunction. It is stated that the suit is pre-mature and has been filed without exhausting the remedy available in the Department channel. It is disclosed that 35 depot holders, including the petitioner, had admitted before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Karnal, that they had not received any wheat under APL Scheme and accordingly had not distributed the same. Wheat, thus, was sold in the open market in connivance with the depot holder. 14400 quintal of wheat had, thus, been shown distributed whereas in fact it had been sold in the open market. Finding that the petitioner had made bogus entries and had also procured statements of some persons, the licence has been cancelled. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would mainly contend that subsequent to the enquiry by Additional Deputy Commissioner, the matter was referred to the Vigilance and was also enquired into by the Commissioner. The employees of the Food and Supplies Department were reinstated. It is on this basis the counsel would contend that licence of the petitioner needs to be revoked, allowing him to carry on his business. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The petitioner had acted in connivance with the officer of the Food and Supplies Department and had facilitated the sale of the wheat in open market which was meant to be distributed amongst the APL persons. The petitioner had admitted this fact in CIVIL REVISION NO.619 OF 2008 :{ 4 }: the enquiry held by the Additional Deputy Commissioner. His assertion that he was threatened and his signatures obtained would not inspire confidence and seems to have been made only to get out of the statement that he apparently made voluntarily. Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed in limine. February 13, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE