H RAMAKRISHNA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 3rd respondent in this writ petition is a person holding authorisation to distribute essential food items and other items under the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution system) Control Order, 1992 (for short, 'the Order'), for card-holders in Neerakallu Village, madhugiri Taluk, Tumkur District.

(2.) THE manner of distribution of food items by this authorised distributor was subject-matter of an enquiry before the 1st respondent-Deputy Commissioner particularly in the contest of complaints that the 3rd respondent had not supplied rice to 447 students of Government Higher primary School, Neerakallu during the year 2001 and likewise had not supplied food items to 67 students of the Government Higher Primary School, Gollrahalli and also that the 3rd respondent has not distributed rice to 135 students of Government Higher Primary School, Chinnenahalli and so on. An enquiry was held by the Deputy Commissioner through the Tahsildar and based on the report of the Tahsildar the Deputy Commissioner who had initially placed the authorisation issued in favour of the 3rd respondent under suspension passed final orders on 23rd September, 2001 (copy at Annexure-A) whereby the Deputy Commissioner though recorded a finding that the 3rd respondent had in fact misused the rice meant for distribution to the students of the schools under the Government Midday Meal Scheme and as such found him guilty of violations of the conditions of the authorisation, nevertheless imposed penalty of Rs. 5,000/-, cancelled the earlier order of suspension and the alternate arrangement that had been made for supply of such food items to the students and others during the period of suspension and restored the licence in favour of the 3rd respondent warning him not to give room for such irregularities in future. It is this order of the Deputy Commissioner that is sought to be challenged in the present writ petition by the petitioner who claims to be the President of one of the School Development Committee of government Higher Primary School, Neerakallu and resident of the village.

(3.) SRI H. T. Narendra Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Deputy commissioner could not have passed an order of this nature as per Clause 12 of the Distribution order that the Deputy Commissioner could only have cancelled the authorisation after having found that the 3rd respondent in fact had violated the terms and conditions of the authorisation and that restoring the authorisation in favour of the 3rd respondent is not in public interest, that the 3rd respondent is a person who had time and again committed such irregularities and had misused the authorisation and as such the Authority should have only cancelled his authorisation.