PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH. *** CWP No. 16099 OF 2007. Date of Decision: January 09, 2009. *** Ishwar Dass Singla Versus State of Punjab and others. *** Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S.Thakur, CJ and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta. *** Present: Shri Ashok Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Amol Rattan Singh, Addl: A.G. with Ms. Sonu Chahal, DAG, Punjab. *** T.S.Thakur, CJ (Oral) This petition has been filed in public interest. It prays for a mandamus directing the respondents to check embezzlements in the distribution of essential commodities like Rice, Wheat, Sugar, Flour, Edible Oil, Kerosene Oil meant for public distribution among those belonging to the poorer sections of the society and others who are eligible for the same. The petitioners' case appears to be that rations meant for distribution through the Public Distribution System (for short PDS) are generally sold in black market with the result that while the depot holders make huge profits, those who are actually eligible to benefit from the same continue to suffer. The petitioner has also brought out cases of irregularities in allotment of depots by reference to Annexure P-4 addressed to the Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Food & Civil Supplies, Chandigarh. He alleges that contrary to the prevalent rules and departmental instructions on the subject, depots are being allotted to persons belonging to the same family, thereby depriving similarly situated eligible persons from running such depots. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit in which the averments made in the writ petition have been denied. It is inter alia stated by the respondents that the complaint made by the petitioner in relation to allotment of depots was looked into by the authorities but when the petitioner was -2- CWP No. 16099 OF 2007. summoned to testify to the correctness of the averments made in the same, he denied having made any such complaint. It is also submitted that the authorities periodically conduct raids to check the functioning of the ration depots and take appropriate action against those found to be committing violation of the rules or instructions on the subject. When the writ petition came up before us on 25.09.2008, learned counsel for the respondents was directed to take instructions whether the Central Vigilance Committee headed by Justice D.P.Wadhwa, a former Judge of the Supreme Court was examining matters relating to Public Distribution System and measures necessary for rationalization of the same, Mr.Amol Rattan Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has today placed before us a copy of notification dated July 18, 2008, from a reading whereof it appears that the Central Vigilance Committee under the chairmanship of Justice D.P.Wadhwa was established pursuant to the orders of the Supreme Court passed in the matter of Writ Petition (Civil) No. 196 of 2001 PUCL Versus Union of India. The Committee is required to go into the maladies affecting proper functioning of Public Distribution System in the country. The notification further mentions that the tenure of the committee has been extended from time to time in terms of the directions issued by the Supreme Court. The current tenure of the committee stands extended in terms of the notification referred to above till April 2009. It is urged by Mr. Singh on the basis of the above notification that all issues relating to the Public Distribution System in the country and in the State of Punjab are being examined by the said Committee and that the petitioner can also approach the said committee to point out the deficiencies and malpractice that according to the petitioner exists in the system. On behalf of the petitioner, it was on the other hand submitted that while the Central Vigilance Committee may be examining the larger issue regarding the streamlining of the Public Distribution System yet there are certain specific grievances of the petitioner which can be directed to be looked into by the authorities concerned. Two aspects which were brought out in this regard before us relate to allotment of depots and the need to take appropriate action -3- against those who are found to have committed any violation of the instructions or committed any malpractices to the prejudice of the beneficiaries of the system. In so far as the allotment of the depots is concerned, the petitioners' case appears to be that the said allotments are being made contrary to the rules and the instructions issued from time to time. A mention about this aspect has been made by the petitioner in a representation marked P-4 to the petition. A reading of the said representation would show that the petitioner has named four depot holders and alleged that the allotment of depots to them is not in accordance with the rules and instructions on the subject. We do not for the present propose to examine the correctness of the said allegation in these proceedings especially when the persons named in the representation are not parties before us. All the same, we see no reason why the Director, Food and Supplies cannot be directed to look into the allegations, verify the facts and pass appropriate orders on the same in case the allotment of depots to the persons named in the representation is found to be unjustified and contrary to the rules and/or instructions on the subject. So also the question whether the authorities are taking appropriation action against those who are reported to have committed violations or malpractices while running the depot, we find from the counter affidavit that a number of raids have been conducted between January, 2008 to July, 2008 to check the working of such depots. Based on the reports submitted in connection with the said raids, a large number of show cause notices have also been issued to different depot holders out of whom, the licence of some of the depot holders have also been suspended. There is however nothing to indicate whether any action is still pending against the defaulter depot holders on the basis of the raids and the show cause notices issued by the authorities concerned. There is no gain saying that if a raid has revealed any malpractice the authorities must take immediate action against the defaulter to ensure that the beneficiaries do not suffer on account of greed or apathy of the depot holders. In the circumstances all that we need say is that the authorities would take immediate and effective action against the defaulters who are found to have committed any malpractice -4- CWP 16099 of 2007 or violation of any of the rules or instructions on the subject no sooner the said malpractice is discovered. The Director, Food and Supplies shall in this regard monitor the progress of the cases pending against the depot holders periodically and take necessary action or have such action taken by the competent authority wherever the same is called for. Apart from the two aspects mentioned above, we see no reason to examine the larger issue regarding improvements required to be made in the Public Distribution System. We say so because the matter squarely falls within the jurisdiction of the Central Vigilance Committee set up by the Supreme Court. All that we need say is that the petitioner shall be free to approach the Central Vigilance Committee and make what ever suggestions are considered necessary in which event we hope and trust that the Central Vigilance Committee would examine the same. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. (T.S.Thakur) Chief Justice (Hemant Gupta) Judge January 09, 2009 Malik