- (1.) The petitioner seeks for quashing of the order issued by the second respondent on a direction from this Court in CWP No. 13857 of 2009 to settle the claim of the person like the petitioner, who was a Depot-holder and who claimed payment of margin money and transportation charges for distribution of wheat under the 'Antyodaya Anna Yojna', a Central scheme for TPDS families. The scheme of the Central Government was for the distribution of wheat and other food grains at the subsidized rate of Rs. 2/- per kg for wheat and Rs. 3/- per kg for rice. The petitioner made the claim on the basis of instructions which had already been issued by the Government of Punjab Food and Supplies to all the District Supply Controllers and Deputy Director, Food & Supply to do the needful regarding the claim of loading and unloading charges of every Depot-holder at '6.18 per quintal plus Rs. 11/- margin as Depot-holder so that due claim could be disbursed to the Depot-holder as early as possible. The Deputy Secretary has also expressed consternation to the inaction on the part of the Deputy Director and the Supply Controllers for not having done anything in this regard, which showed gross negligence of the authorities. This communication clearly expresses that there was a direction from the Government to address the claims of Depot-holders at particular rates referred in the communication dated 10.09.2001. Subsequent to this, there was also published in the Gazette on March 14, 2002 by the Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs called the Punjab Public Distribution System (Licensing and Control) Order, 2003 the scheme which defines 'Andyodaya Families' as Below Poverty Line (BPL) and delineates certain policies for monitoring a system of supplies under the scheme. It also prescribes various forms for grant of licenses and sets out the responsibilities and duties of fair price shop owners.
(2.) The petitioner's grievance came through the earlier writ petition on the basis of which the impugned order was passed when the fair price owners and depot-holders were not being paid transportation charges and margin money as provided in the communication dated 10.09.2001. The impugned order has been passed on 17.11.2009 stating that the State Government had issued direction to Nodal agency on 02.07.2001 prescribing certain charges but they were not in a position to bear the expenses under this scheme. Therefore, the petitioner could not be provided any transportation and margin money. 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. So long as the direction already given under Annexure P-3, remains, the impugned order passed cannot supercede the same. It also cannot be possible for the second respondent to take a view that the Government is not in a position to bear the expenses under the scheme. The fourth respondent shall be bound by the directions already issued on the basis of which the petitioner is entitled to make the claim at the minimum rate which is stipulated in the communication through Annexure P-3. The impugned order is quashed and there shall be a direction against the fourth respondent to meet with the claims of the petitioner the charges mentioned through communication dated 02.07.2001. The petitioner shall make appropriate calculations and submit its statement of account to the fourth respondent and on presentation of such calculation, the fourth respondent is bound to make the payment within a period of eight weeks from the date when the representation is given, after verification of the details and entering a satisfaction on the correctness of calculation.
(3.) The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms.;