BABU RAM versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

Babu Ram v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. 24821 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 9995 (24 May 2007)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon. Sunil Ambwani, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

The petitioner's authorisation to distribute scheduled commodities was  cancelled on 3.12.2005 and the appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner, Bareilly Division o  1.5.2007 on the ground of serious irregularities. In distribution of the scheduled commodities.  A report was made that the  petitioner had overcharged the price of kerosene oil, wheat and rice.  The village pradhan and many other card holders gave affidavits that the petitioner is distributing  foodgrains, sugar and kerosene oil on only on one day in a month and does not distribute foodgrains, sugar and kerosene oil to B.P.L. In prescribed quantities and price to the card holders.  

The Supreme Court has passed orders in a public interest writ petition directing all the shop keepers in Public Distribution Scheme to distribute scheduled commodities to persons holding 'BPL' ' Antyodaya' and 'Annapurna' benefices according to their convenience.  The distribution of scheduled commodities only on one day at higher prices causes severe hardship to the poverty stricken beneficiaries.  Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he had made a request for a proper inspection and that the authorisation could not be cancelled on a single inspection.  The argument does not merit consideration.  Even a single inspection can demonstrate severe irregularities in distribution of scheduled commodities.  The petitioner failed to produce stock and sale register to support his plea in defence.

The orders passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bisalpur, Pilibhit and the Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly cancelling the authorisation do not suffer from any illegality.  The writ petition is dismissed.

Dt. 24.5.2007.

BM/-24821-07.

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.