- (1.) The petitioners, who are fair price depot holders claim margin money and transportation charges for wheat, which is supplied at Atta Dal Scheme. The grievance is that the margin money of Rs. 6.60 per quintal, which is afforded to Dal only is not extended for wheat. This Court had an occasion to deal with a related subject in M/s. Zamindara Oil Store Rampura Phool v. State of Punjab, 2012 5 RCR(Civ) 932: C.W.P. No. 779 of 2010 dated 14.07.2011 where I have stated as follows:- .....While the Government in its policy provided for subsidized rates as a measure of fulfillment of a constitutional directive under Para IV of the Constitution for effective redistribution of all economic wealth and to ensure schemes for alleviation of poverty, a depot-holder cannot be compelled to share the charity that the Government may have in its policy. The depot-holder has not asked for the charity. On the other hand, he seeks for recovery of charges actually incurred and it shall not avail to the State to contend that they are not getting any funding from the Central Government as regards for the same. On the other hand, in the schemes the State shall provide adequate allocations to take care of the contingencies of claims at the instance of every depot-holder.
(2.) When the grievance was brought before this Court through a writ petition in C.W.P. No. 6047 of 2009, this Court had directed that a representation shall be made to the State and they will take a decision through a speaking order. Now the speaking order has been issued, which is challenged by this writ petition, saying that the scheme is intended for poor persons and that the depot holders are not expected to make profit. However, since wheat and dal are supplied in gunny bags and they are retained by depot holders themselves, the cost of bags themselves would defray the expenses incurred for transportation and take care of the margin money payable. I had asked the learned counsel for State to take instruction whether the bags, which are allowed to be retained by the depot owners could be returned to the State and paid the said cost to the depot owners for compensating them for margin money and transportation charges. Now the learned counsel for the State Sh. Navdeep Sukhna says that the Government is not prepared to take back the bags. Evidently it means that the alleged cost of each bag which the State contended would be worth Rs. 24/-, which is supposed to cover the expenses, cannot be a true contention. If the Government is not prepared to take the bags, it is not appropriate for them to state that the cost of the bags will cover the expenses.
(3.) As this Court has already expressed, it is very well for the State to have a charitable disposition and provide for grain at subsidised rates for BPL families. Such a charity cannot be forced on any of the depot holders. The margin money is not at all times a full component of profit. It would include even the expenses incurred for running the shop. Same way, transportation expense is not an element of profit but it is an actual amount incurred by a depot holder for securing the grains to the depot. It will be unfair to cast that burden on the depot holder. It is not possible for this Court to determine the actual infrastructural cost that may necessary for storing the grains, which is supplied under the Scheme and the actual amount that would be incurred for transportation. It may be a wrong estimation to cite the same rates which are specified for dal to be directed to pay for wheat as well. The State shall again look into the matter and pass an appropriate order, which is fair and just, in the light of observations made above. The respondent No. 1 shall take a decision within 6 weeks taking note of the observations made above. The writ petition is disposed of.;