BADRI LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under the Public Distribution System the Tehsildar, Mangrol, Distt. Kota (Raj.) had issued on Feb. 5, 1977 an authorisation under Clause 3(4) of the Rajasthan Foodgrains and other Essential Articles (Regularisation of Distribution) Order, 1976 (for short, 'the Order 1976) for purchase, sale and storage for sale of foodgrains and other essential articles to the petitioner, an already existing wholesale dealer. Condition Nos. 5, 8 and 10 of the 'General Conditions' and condition No. 14 of the 'special conditions' of this authorisation which are relevant for our purpose provided as under :- General Conditions :

(2.) In conformity with the terms and conditions of the authorisation, the Collector (supplies) had also issued certain 'permanent instructions' on May 2, 1977 in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under Clause 20 of the Order 1976.

(3.) In terms of the authorisation issued in his favour the petitioner was supplied from time to time, by the State Government inter alia, levy sugar to distribute amongst the ration card holders of ward Nos. 6 to 10 of village Mangrol at his 'fair price shop' in that village. On an inspection made on June 2, 1977 of his said shop and the relevant documents by PW. 1 Suresh Kumar Shori, Enforcement Inspector and PW. 3 Harnath Singh, Enforcement Officer of the Supply Department it was noted that 11 Qtls of levy sugar obtained on May 20, 1977 by the petitioner from Anta Kriya Vikarya Sehkari Samiti for the month of April 1977 was not reflected in the Stock Register, that the position of opening stock and the price of the levy sugar as on 2-6-1977 was not mentioned in the list which was though exhibited on the shop but was dated 1-3-1977, that distribution of 1 Qtls 33 Kg. and 500 gm. of levy sugar was wrongly shown as distributed in some ration cards by making entries therein regarding distribution of sugar twice in each of the months of January, 1977 to March 1977. It was also noted that the receipt of sugar was neither communicated to Surpanch, Patwari and Gram Sewak nor the stock register was got signed by two witnesses as required by the permanent instructions issued by the Collector (supplies) Kota. On demand the petitioner refused to show and deliver the stock register to the officers of the Supply Department. The petitioner was thus found to have violated condition Nos. 5, 8, 10 and 14 of the Authorisation issued by the Tehsildar and 1, 2, 3, 4, 9 and 18 of the permanent instructions issued by the Collector (supplies) Kota.