JAGAT BAHADUR Vs. DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was an authorised retail distributor appointed by the District Supply Officer, Allahabad, for selling Government foodgrains and levy sugar under a written agreement containing the terms and conditions of retailership. He is aggrieved by the order dated June 22, 1989 passed by the District Supply Officer, Allahabad, terminating his retailership on the ground that in view of the facts stated in that order it would be against public interest to allow the petitioner to sell Government foodgrains.

(2.) The order is challenged broadly on two grounds. One, that clause (16) of the agreement under which the impugned action has been taken is violative of Art.14 of the Constitution of India in that it vests in the District Supply Officer an unbriddled and arbitrary power to terminate the retailership without assigning any reasons. Two, the impugned order visits the petitioner with civil consequences and consequently the same is liable to be quashed inasmuch as it was taken without complying with the principles of natural justice.

(3.) Having given the contentions our careful and anxious consideration, we find no merit in either of them. Before, however, we deal with these submissions we may briefly set out essential facts. For the purpose of distribution and sale of Government foodgrains and other essential articles the Government has authorised the District Magistrate/District Supply Officer/ Town Rationing Officer to appoint agents called the authorised retail distributors. The appointment is made by means of a written agreement executed by one, or the other officers mentioned above as well as the agent. The terms and conditions of appointment of these agents have not been laid down under any statutory order: The appointment as an agent is, therefore, regulated entirely by the terms and conditions incorporated in the agreement as has been consistently ruled by this Court right from the year 1975, as well as the decision in Writ Petition No.77 of 1981 which has also ,been affirmed by the Supreme Court. Clause (16) of the agreement provides that the District Magistrate/ DSO/ TRO shall have the right to terminate the agreement at any time without assigning any reason therefor. Relying on this clause the District Supply Officer, Allahabad, has, by the impugned order, terminated the agency of the petitioner. The order states that on June 21, 1989 at 9.30 a. m., the Additional Commissioner (Shops), Allahabad, accompanied by two Supply Inspectors, viz., Prabhajit Singh and B.P. Rastogi made a surprise inspection of the petitioner's shop. Upon inspection serious irregularities were discovered in the petitioner's sale register. The instances cited are that under the signature of the same individual sugar had been supplied in the name of several card holders, Likewise, on the same page of the reg1ster sugar is shown to have been distributed to twelve persons but in the column of signatures of the card holders only eight persons had signed. The register further discloses that from several card holders prices had been charged in excess of the control price fixed by the Government. The order then goes on to state that it was apparent that the petitioner was misusing the distributorship. The sale register was accordingly taken into custody by the aforesaid officers. Thereupon the petitioner with the help of certain anti-social elements got the register snatched from the custody of these officers and thereby obstructed the officers from performing their duties. An FIR of the incident was accordingly lodged by the officers with the police. On these facts the agreement of the petitioner was cancelled.