K.KUTTAPPAN Vs. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is challenging the orders Exts.P2 and P5 cancelling his license to conduct ARD No.217 of Ernakulam District and prays for a direction to restore his license.

(2.) The petitioner's case is that he has been conducting Authorised Ration Depot No.217 of Ernakulam District in Keezhmuri of Muvattupuzha Taluk for 44 years. On 22.6.2007, a surprise inspection was conducted in the ration shop and certain irregularities were found consequent to which his license was suspended. Thereafter Ext.P2 memo of charge was issued to him on 15.2.2008. It was alleged that in the inspection conducted on 22.06.2007, the special squad detected (1) shortage of 80 kg of boiled rice, excess stock in respect of 100kg of raw rice and shortage of 33kg of matta rice; (2) only a 1/2 litre measuring cup was kept for measuring kerozine (3) the depot copy of the card register not kept in the depot (4) stock register not written after 20.6.2007 (5) made profit by sale of rationed articles in black market, making entries in records relating to distribution of rationed articles in excess of what is actually distributed to card holders; the quantity of articles thus misutilised for the period from 1.1.2006 to 6.1.2007 was stated as 105 kgs of rice, 224 liters of kerozine, 5.3 kg of sugar and 9 kg of wheat, with reference to 15 ration cards detailed therein (6) Complaints from consumers regarding non issuance of bills (7) complaints as to realisation of excess price for rationed articles (8) complaints as to irregular working hours for the depot;(9) License was suspended once on 3.4.2007, on detecting irregularities in the inspection conducted by District Supply Officer and taking liberal attitude it was restored to him with a warning. In view of the seriousness of the irregularities found, which amount to violation of the provisions in the contract entered into with Government, petitioner was asked to show cause as to why his license should not be cancelled permanently, security amount forfeited and the price of the articles misused by him be realized at the rates of Above Poverty Line.

(3.) The petitioner thereupon submitted Ext.P3 representation before the District Supply Officer denying the allegations stating that the actual shortage of stock of rice was only 13 kg., since excess stock of raw rice was found though there was shortage in boiled rice. He stated that the demand for boiled rice was more in rainy season and therefore he distributed boiled rice in the place of raw rice, on the request of card holders. According to him there would not be any shortage if the rice left over in the depot on the floor and in between the rice bags were collected and weighed. Regarding measuring cup of kerozine he stated that it was available in the shop itself and at relevant time he could not search it out, due to his old age and ailments. He stated that the depot copy of card register was taken to the Taluk Supply Office on 18.6.2007 for verification and forgot to be taken back. He stated that due to old age, he could not write the stock register as there was heavy rush of customers on 21.06.2007 and 22.06.2007. He denied all the allegations including those as to mis - utilisation of rationed articles and requested to absolve him of the charges. Regarding the allegations 6 to 9 it was stated that he had not committed any of the offences as alleged.