W.P. (C) No. 1118/2008 Page 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1118/2008 Date of decision: 22nd July, 2009 MADAN LAL SURESH KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Nitin Sehgal, Advocate. Versus THE COMMSISIONER FOOD & SUPPLIES DELHI&ANR.. Respondents Through Mr. Habibur Rahman, Advocate for Mr. Saleem Ahmed, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? O R D E R % 1. The petitioner was issued a fair price shop licence for distribution of controlled food articles. On 28th March, 2007, inspection was done at the fair price shop of the petitioner and the following discrepancies were noticed: (1) Bags of wheat belonging to fair price shop of the petitioner were W.P. (C) No. 1118/2008 Page 2 found lying in a nearby chakki. (2) On verification and checking, the fair price stock was found to be short by 13.40 quintals of wheat and by 17.33 quintals of rice. 2. The licence of the petitioner was suspended by order dated 2nd April, 2007 and a show cause notice was issued as to why the petitioner’s licence should not be cancelled. The petitioner submitted his reply admitting shortage of wheat and rice as mentioned by the enforcement team but submitted that wheat and rice had been stocked adjacent to the shop as pest control operation had been undertaken. It was further stated that the bags of wheat found at chakki did not belong to the fair price shop of the petitioner. 3. Assistant Commissioner (Food and Supply) by order dated 5th September, 2007 cancelled the licence granted to the petitioner. He held that diversion of wheat to the atta chakki was noticed and the owner of the atta chakki could not produce any document at the time of inspection that the wheat had been purchased from open market. Subsequently, during the course of hearing before the Assistant Commissioner, photocopy of a bill issued by Mittal Trading Company was produced. The Assistant Commissioner noticed that in the photocopy date of purchase has been over-written and he rejected the same on that account. Regarding shortage of 13.40 quintals of wheat and 17.33 quintals of rice, Assistant Commissioner has recorded that the checking staff had counted W.P. (C) No. 1118/2008 Page 3 and weighed the entire stock in the shop and then calculated the shortage. The checking staff had stated that not a single bag of wheat or rice was found lying outside the shop. It is recorded in the order of the Assistant Commissioner that senior officers of the respondent were also present along with the enforcement team at the time of inspection. 4. On appeal filed by the petitioner, Commissioner (Food and Supply) has confirmed the order of cancellation of licence. It is mentioned in the said order that at the time of inspection in addition to staff from the enforcement branch, officers of Central Vigilance Committee, Anti- Hoarding Cell and Assistant Commissioner (South-West) were present. It is also mentioned in the said order that the bags of wheat found at atta chakki had the marking of the petitioner’s fair price shop No. 8740. The petitioner’s contention that empty bags might have been purchased by the atta chakki owner from a scrap dealer was rejected. The Commissioner held that the so-called documentary proof in form of bills from Mittal Trading Company for purchase of wheat by atta chakki owner appear to be fabricated. It has been held that at the time of inspection the petitioner was not able to submit any proof. 5. It is clear that at the time of inspection on 28th March, 2007, officers from Enforcement Directorate, Central Vigilance Committee, Anti-Hoarding Cell and Assistant Commissioner (South-West) were present. At the time of inspection no alibi or explanation was given by the petitioner in respect W.P. (C) No. 1118/2008 Page 4 of 13.40 quintals of wheat and 17.33 quintals of rice, which were found to be short. The quantity involved is substantial and cannot be ignored. It was not stated by the petitioner that at the time of inspection or shortly thereafter he had written any letter that the stock had been removed and was lying outside the shop. The plea with regard to pest control also does not appeal to reasoning as admittedly some stock was found in the shop itself. Neither was this plea taken at the time of inspection. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner wanted to rely upon certain internal file notings, copies of which he has obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Internal file notings may contain opinions and views of some officers but these opinions and views cannot be a good ground to set aside the impugned orders, which have been passed after examining facts of this case. Similarly, the petitioner relies upon order dated 19th September, 2007 passed in the case of M/s Banwari lal Ram Kumar. In the said case, after inspection wheat was found to be short by 30 kg, rice was found to be short by 9.7 kg and sugar was found to be short by 5.3 kg. Looking into the explanations furnished by the said party, the suspension order was revoked and proceedings for cancellation of licence were dropped without prejudice to the outcome of the FIR lodged by the enforcement branch. Each case is different and as noticed above, shortage of wheat, rice and sugar found in the said case was small, compared to the shortage of 13.40 quintal of wheat and 17.33 quintals of W.P. (C) No. 1118/2008 Page 5 rice found in the case of the petitioner herein. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed. SANJIV KHANNA, J. JULY 22, 2009 VKR