ANILKUMAR V. Vs. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a transporting contractor for transporting and supplying rationed articles. The petitioner lifts the items from the FCI Depot/CMR godown to the Taluk Depots and from there transport and delivers at the door steps of fair price shops notified by SUPPLYCO in Punalur Taluk. The petitioner’s contention was that in making the delivery, the petitioner employs his own workers having Rule 26A cards.

(2.) The learned Standing Counsel for the Board appeared and filed a counter affidavit in which it has been specifically stated that none of the persons who are said to have 26A cards were persons in the permanent employment of the petitioner. They were random workers issued with Rule 26 A cards and were employed randomly by the petitioner. We took umbrage at the false averments made by the petitioner in the writ petition. In any event, as of now, the petitioner has apologized for the same and withdrawn his contentions with respect to permanent workers having Rule 26A cards.

(3.) Admittedly the area is scheme covered. The petitioner's contention is that there are different rates quoted by the different pools within the area. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Union submits that there is a different rate only because, if the items are to be unloaded directly to the shop, a lesser rate is demanded, while if it has to be weighed and then again lifted to the fair price shop, a different amount is quoted.