RAJASEKHAR MANTHA,J. - (1.) Let the 2nd line of the 3rd Paragraph at Page 1 of the order dated 25/06/2018 be corrected to read - "the Court is that the order passed in the appeal under paragraph 32 of the"
(2.) On the 17th of July 2017 the following order was dictated:- "The writ petitioner was a M.R. Distributor to stock foodgrains to be distributed under the P.D.S. Scheme through retail dealers. The petitioner society functions under the P.D.S. Control Order, 2013. Certain discrepancies in the stock that was supplied to the writ petitioner by the State for storage purpose were found to be missing. Based on an inspection report dated 19.08.2016, a showcause notice was issued to the petitioner on 21.09.2016. The writ petitioner replied to the said showcause and also appeared and made submissions before the authority concerned. The final order dated 18.09.2016 came to be passed finding the petitioner guilty of misappropriation and other acts and omissions, in relation to the stock of foodgrains stored at the godown of the writ petitioner. Based on such finding, a fine of Rs. 90,10,148.62/- was imposed upon the petitioner allegedly in terms of Clause 3(c) and .6 of Schedule B of the W.B.P.D.S. (M.N.C.) Order of 2013. The said order was passed by the District Controller (F.N.S.), Hooghly. The said order was carried in appeal and such appeal was rejected on 29.03.2017 by the Director of District Distributor, Procurement and Supply. The second appeal was carried therefrom to the Principal Secretary, Food and Supplies, Govt. of W.B. was also rejected by the order dated 31.08.2017. The writ petitioner would urge before me in challenge of the process of adjudication as follows: a) That the inspection report only referred to Approximate quantities of missing foodgrains as also those foodgrains that were found excess. Hence, the Authorities, according to the petitioner, were sure of the actual amount of missing foodgrains. b) Even assuming, though admitting, that there may have been some quantities of foodgrains missing, a fine of Rs. 90.10 lacs, as stated above, is wholly and totally devoid of any basis or reason. c) The writ petitioner's stocking distributorship has been terminated till date despite a finding of misappropriation and hence the said figure has been unduly inflicted for collateral purpose. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party State submits that a perusal of the records of the Authority would clearly indicate that the figure of Rs. 90.10 lacs and odd is supported by appropriate reasons and has a rational basis. A calculation sheet is intended to be produced before the Court. The learned counsel for the State relies upon the records relating to the said proceedings and seeks time until tomorrow to take further instructions in the matter."
(3.) In continuation of the submissions made on 17.07.2018, the Learned counsel for the State authorities has made detailed submission with reference to the various provisions of the Control Order.;