MARUTI YUVAKA SANGHA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 23.07.2011 passed by the first respondent in Revision Petition No. FCS 20 ECA 2005 at Annexure -C to the petition. The petitioner is also seeking for mandamus to direct the first respondent to reject the revision petition filed by the fifth respondent. The petitioner -Sangha had applied for grant of license to run the fair price shop at Magadi Village. The authorization to run the same was issued in the year, 1982. When this was the position, the Food Inspector attached to the second respondent inspected the premises on 19.09.2002. At that point, it was noticed that 4.9 quintals of Ragi was kept in a room attached to the fair price shop. The said place was not mentioned as the place of business in the license. A report was submitted to the Tahsildar on 24.09.2002. Based on such report, the first respondent had passed an order dated 11.10.2002 suspending the license granted to the petitioner, a show cause notice was also issued and subsequently, the second respondent by the order dated 17.02.2003 imposed the penalty of Rs. 1,000/ -. The fifth respondent however assailed the said action in the revision filed under Clause 20 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1992. The first respondent has thereafter, by the impugned order dated 23.07.2011 directed the Deputy Commissioner to reconsider the proceedings after examining the cardholders and thereafter come to a conclusion in the matter. The said order is assailed in the instant petition.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the first respondent at the outset was not justified in entertaining the revision filed by the fifth respondent. It is also his contention that the Revisional Authority has taken into consideration the aspects which were not the grounds raised by the fifth respondent and therefore, such order could not have been passed. It is his further contention that when the Deputy Commissioner at the first instance had taken note of all aspects of the matter and did not find any major irregularity except that the said quantity of Ragi had been kept in the adjoining room, the Revisional Authority should have accepted the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, whereby the fine of Rs. 1,000/ - had been imposed and the matter had been closed. In that view, it is contended that the order impugned is not justified and is liable to be quashed.

(3.) IN the light of the above, the fact that the proceedings were initiated on the basis that the 4.9 quintals of Ragi which was given for public distribution was not kept in the premises for which the license was issued and was kept elsewhere was taken into consideration based on the report submitted to the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner on accepting the same has passed the order imposing the fine of Rs. 1,000/ - after noticing the same to be a irregularity. In that light, a perusal of the order impugned herein would disclose that the first respondent had adverted to this aspect of the matter. Even if the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the first respondent has gone into all aspects of the matter and it was not justified is also kept in view, what is necessary to be noticed is that while presently coming to the conclusion that the matter is to be reconsidered by the Deputy Commissioner, the first respondent has also taken note of the instances that have taken place earlier only to take note of the fact that the present contention that the Ragi stored in the adjoining room cannot be taken as a stray instance or a innocuous situation, where; the Deputy Commissioner has treated the same lightly to impose the fine of Rs. 1,000/ - and absolve the petitioner in such manner.