NAGRIK UPBHOKTA M MANCH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the State of Madhya Pradesh, Kerosene was being distributed and made available for sale to consumers through public distribution system and by appointing fair price shops and retailers. By executive instructions, the State of Madhya Pradesh evolved a system called rounding off of the price in the name of securing distribution of Kerosene at uniform prices. The effect of the system was that the prices for sale by the wholesalers and the retailers were so strategically appointed as to generate a margin which was collected by Collectors in several districts and the Director of Civil Supplies at the State level. Such fixation of prices, based on rounding off, was challenged by filing writ petitions in the High Court which were dismissed. The matter came up in appeals by special leave before this Court. This Court allowed the appeals. The judgment of the High Court was set aside and the system of rounding off of the prices so as to build up funds available with the Director and the Collectors was directed to be quashed being ultra vires of Article 265 of the Constitution and Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and para 2(d) of the Kerosene (Restriction on Use and Fixation of Ceiling Price) Order, 1993.

(2.) During the pendency of the writ petition and the appeals, the State of Madhya Pradesh was reorganized into two States by carving out the State of Chhattisgarh separately from out of the State of Madhya Pradesh. The State of Chhattisgarh was joined as party to the appeals in this Court. Huge funds, running into crores of rupees, were found to have been collected by the two States the figures whereof were brought to the notice of this Court. However, the collection had continued during the pendency of the appeals. Vide its judgment dated May 2, 2002 (reported as (2002) 5 SCC 466) apart from striking down the system of rounding off, the Court made the following further directions:--

(3.) The Principal Accountant-General of Madhya Pradesh has carried out the audit in terms of the directions made by this Court. It was a voluminous task and could not be completed within the appointed period of four months and, therefore, the time was extended. In February, 2003, the report has been filed on behalf of the Principal Accountant-General (Audit)-I of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior after carrying out the audit of funds available with the two Directorates of Food and Civil Supplies and with the Collectors of 61 Districts in the States of Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh. We record our appreciation of the commendable work done by the office of the Principal Accountant-General (Audit)-I abovesaid within a reasonable time and very expeditiously. The report satisfies the directions made by this Court.