IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.22379 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:02.12.2011 Devinder Kumar and another ...Petitioners versus State of Punjab, through Secretary, Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Punjab Mini-Secretariat Building, Sector 9, Chandigarh, and others. ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Gurbachan Singh Bhatia, Advocate, for the petitioners. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioners challenge the allotment of a depot running fair price shops made in favour of respondents 6 to 14. The contention of the petitioner is that the entire selection was itself not carried out through a properly constituted committee and the choice of candidates had been made at the personal whims of MLA. The further contention was that even the applications for allotment had been collected from persons in plain sheets and did not conform to the relevant form prescribed under the Punjab Public Distribution System (Licensing and Control) Order of 2003. It is also the Civil Writ Petition No.22379 of 2011 (O&M) - 2 - contention of the petitioners that the whole process of selection was done in a fraudulent manner by the District, Food and Supplies Controller with the assistance of the DFSO. The petitioner would point out to the fact that there were several news items that reported on the unlawful manner of allotments of the fair price shops. 2. The seriousness of the allegations are not grounded on any materials. As far as the contention that the interview was conducted without reference to the District Level Committee, I have no means of support for such a sweeping allegation. The contention again that the applications had been collected from various persons without conforming to the proforma prescribed under the relevant Order of 2003 has also no basis. The learned counsel would assert that even the petitioners had merely made their applications in a white paper and they had not filled up any form. I do not know how this can be relevant now, for, if it were ever the contention that the application filled by any of the respondents, who was subsequently selected, had not given the details which was required to be given in form-A, then it should have been possible for me to examine the said situation. There is no legal compulsion that the application should not be filled up in a blank form. If the applications contained all the details of what were required that would be sufficient for the fulfillment of the legal formalities. I cannot again accept merely a contention that all the members of the Committee were not involved and it was only the 5th respondent, who was carrying on with the Civil Writ Petition No.22379 of 2011 (O&M) - 3 - interviews with the assistance of some other officer. It should have been possible to even securing the necessary details of who were all the persons who were holding the interviews through an appropriate application under RTI. The composition of the Committee for allotment of ration depots at the District Level Committee that included the Deputy Director (field), Food and Supplies (Chairman) and DFSC/MLA/MC or Sarpanch could not be understood as a compulsion that all of them must be sitting at the same place to conduct interviews. The ultimate decision taken, if it is done by the Committee, it would even be irrelevant that all the three members were not sitting at the time of holding interviews. 3. I do not find that the petitioners have any materials to substantiate the sweeping allegations which they have made as regards the selection of candidates for the fair price shops. The newspaper reports cannot constitute a strong piece of evidence for a judicial intervention. When I asked the counsel to support his arguments with materials, he took umbrage and stated irresponsibly that I was showing favours to other lawyers. I record the fact that the response was in brazen contempt of Court and reprehensible. 4. The writ petition is without merits and it is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE 02.12.2011 sanjeev