GH RASOOL ANCHARI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD . Admit. Since I am not inclined to pass any order prejudicial to the interests of the State, therefore, I find no legal obstacle to finally dispose of the writ petition without calling for returns from the State and its functionaries.

(2.) WHAT posts, positions and responsibilities the petitioners are saddled with particulars are wanting. Why they are so secretive need not detain the Court because it is gathered from the annexures appended to the writ petition that they are either Storekeepers or Supervisors. Their case is that the authority concerned having failed to destroy the food grains unfit for human consumption involving an amount of Rs.18,57,024.60, indulgence by the Court is called for so as to reduce the same to ashes.

(3.) THE question that calls for an answer from none other than the petitioners is as to which of their fundamental rights get infringed by alleged failure. Responding to the query learned counsel submitted that the petitioners are at the verge of retirement and delay in destroying the food grains is likely to cause delay in settlement of their pension claims. Contention is urged simply to be rejected, for, as per the age reflected in the writ petition itself the petitioners two in number have still four and ten years respectively to put in.