IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 23 of 2008 Date of Decision: January 8, 2008 Harish Kumar …Petitioner 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. N.C. Kinra, Advocate, for the petitioner. M.M. KUMAR, J. The petitioner was given licence for distribution of essential commodities to the eligible ration card holders under Clause 7 of the Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2001 (for brevity, ‘the 2001 Order’). His licence was cancelled, vide order dated 7.11.2006, passed by the District Food and Supplies Controller, Panipat-respondent No. 3. However, on appeal the Deputy Commissioner, Panipat-respondent No. 2, vide order dated 16.3.2007, set aside the order and directed that the petitioner be heard again on 20.3.2007. Eventually, the appeal was heard on 16.4.2007. According to the District Food and Supplies Controller the petitioner could not say anything in his defence about the irregularities nor he C.W.P. No. 23 of 2008 could produce any proof to rebut them. It was, thus, ordered that the depot holder has committed irregularities and has violated the provisions of the 2001 Order. As a consequence his licence was cancelled. Again an appeal was filed before the Deputy Commissioner, Panipat, who upheld the order of the District Food and Supplies Controller. It has come on record that checking of the depot belonging to the petitioner was done by the Deputy Director, Food and Supplies and the stock register belonging to the petitioner was not complete. There are categorical findings recorded by the Deputy Commissioner with regard to numerous irregularities, which have been summed up in the concluding para of the impugned order dated 20.6.2007 (P-3) and the same reads as under:- “ After hearing the arguments of both sides and perusing the records, I have reached to this conclusion that the applicant has completely failed to prove the grounds raised in this reference. The main allegation against the applicant is that the ration which was allotted to him for distribution, the same was not distributed in accordance with the stock and in this way, in the month of June, July and August, 2006, 5245 litres of kerosene oil was misdirected. In this way, the applicant has committed irregularities in the distribution of BPL and AAY wheat and rice. In order to falsify these allegations, neither the applicant gave any solid proof in the office of the respondent nor produced any in this 2 C.W.P. No. 23 of 2008 office. As per version of the applicant, he could not make entries in the stock register because his mother was ill who also died subsequently and he did not produce any certificate regarding the ailment or death of his mother and thus for not making entries of the distribution in the stock register, it will be presumed that the applicant did not distribute the ration, which is a grave matter. In these circumstances, the order under consideration was rightly passed by the respondent. Therefore, the reference of the applicant is rejected.” We have heard learned counsel at a considerable length and find that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Both the authorities have recorded categorical findings that the ration which was allotted to the petitioner for distribution, was not distributed in accordance with the rules provided in the 2001 Order. In the months of June, July and August 2006, kerosene oil measuring 5245 litres was misdirected. The petitioner is found to have committed irregularities in distribution of BPL and AAY wheat and rice. These are pure findings of fact and cannot be interfered with by this Court. The only argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a poor handicapped person and the entries could not be made in the stock register as his mother was ill, who eventually expired. We repeatedly asked the learned counsel the period of illness and the date of death of the mother of the petitioner because such type of material was required to be in respect of the 3 C.W.P. No. 23 of 2008 months of June, July and August 2006. No material was produced either before the departmental authorities or before this Court. Therefore, the argument completely lacks substance and the same is liable to be rejected. Learned counsel has also made an attempt to persuade us to accept his submission that the procedure prescribed by Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has not been followed. However, we find that sufficient steps have been taken by the respondent authorities during search and seizure and there is no material irregularity, which may warrant interference of this Court. In view of the above, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (T.P.S. MANN) January 8, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 4