SRI BIJAYA KUMAR DAS,PRESIDENT:-
Deficiency in service and unfair trade practice are the allegations for non-supply of PDS commodities of the fair price shop retailer and challenging the appointment are the allegations arrayed against the Opp.Parties.
2. Complaint, in brief reveals that Sri Banahibari Patra(OP No.1) is appointed as a retailer of fair price shop under Madhusasan Gram Panchayat, where the wife of the retailer is the Sarpanch. The retailer is entrusted to supply rice, wheat, kerosene oil etc. to the PDS card holders of the Panchayat. It is alleged that OP No.1 retailer taking the advantage of the official position of his wife does not supply the PDS commodities to the villagers including the complainant and most of the time his fair price shop remains closed. The allegation against retailer were brought to the notice of BDO(OP No.2) and the M.I.(OP No.3), but the concerned officials did not take any fruitful step with an ulterior motive. It is further alleged that as per State Govt. guidelines a person/individual can not be appointed as a retailer where the husband or wife or any family member functions as a ‘Sarpanch’. It is further alleged that complainant’s friend in order to receive certain information applied under RTI, but the exact informations were not furnished. Being aggrieved complaint is filed before this Forum to take appropriate action against the OP No.1 retailer and the concerned officials who did not furnish the information for which complainant sustained mental agony and torture.
3. Being noticed OP No.1 Sri Banabihari Patra retailer of Madhusasan Panchayat appeared through their Ld. Counsel and filed written statement into the dispute challenging the maintainability of the complaint and further challenges that this Forum is not competent to cancel/withdraw the PDS license of OP No.1 as prayed by the complainant. OP No.1 further denies the allegations of the complainant and submitting the facts, it is stated that a political rivalarity exists between the complainant and oP No.1. OP No.1 distribute the PDS commodity materials to Madhusasan Panchayat under Garadpur Block as per the instruction issued by the Govt. and OP No.1 is performing his duties with all sincerity. It is averred that complainant was taking his PDS materials from OP No.1 without any objection, but due to development of political differences he is avoiding to coming to the OP No.1’s retail shop to get his PDS commodities from September,2013 in spite of several request from the side of OP No.1. It is also stated that if the complainant will not turn up to receive his PDS commodities it is not possible on part of OP No.1 to deliver the materials to complainant. It is further averred that after receipt of the notice of the present dispute BDO,Garadpur block(OP No.2) ordered the Marketing Inspector(OP No.3) to enquire into the matter. After completion and submission of enquiry report OP No.2 issued a letter bearing No.3016 dtd.29.10.2015 accordingly OP No.1 went to the house of the complainant and requested to receive the PDS materials as per the order in the presence of the concerned ward member and other villagers. But the complainant did not came to the retail shop to receive the PDS materials. As the wife of the OP No.1 was elected as a Sarpanch under the banner BJD the complainant being aggrieved on political differences has foisted this false case against the OP No.1 which is liable to be dismissed.
OP No.2, Block Development Officer(BDO),Garadpur appeared through the Ld. Govt. Pleader and filed written statement denying the allegations and the facts of the case are that on allegation of the complainant oP No.2 directed the Marketing Inspector(OP No.3) to make an enquiry and report. Accordingly, OP No.3, M.I.,Garadpur on his enquiry found that complainant has not taken his PDS commodity items from September,2013 to August,2015 and same are available in the retail centre. On receipt of the enquiry report BDO(OP No.2) directed the OP No.1 retailer vide letter No.3016 dtd. 29.10.2015 to deliver PDS commodities to complainant in the presence of the M.I.(OP No.3). As per information of OP No.1 retailer to BDO(OP No.2) complainant did not came to take his PDS commodities. It is also stated that though wife of OP No.1 is elected as a “Sarpanch’ but she is not a member of any advisory vigilance committee to supervise with PDS commodities and there is no bar for the OP No.1 to be continued as a retailer of PDS commodities. Hence, it is prayed that the complaint devoid of any merit and is liable to be rejected. The letter of Dist. Office,Kendrapara bearing No.1745/CS dtd. 21.09.2015 which is filed into the present dispute reveals that OP No.4 Civil Supplies Officer and oP No.5 Collector,Kendrapara empower the OP No.2 BDO,Garadpur to file written version on behalf of them. Accordingly, the written version filed by OP No.2 is treated as a the written version of OP No.4 & 5. The enquiry report submitted by the Marketing Inspectror,Garadpur(OP No.3) addressed to the BDO,Garadpur(OP No.2) is the version of the OP No.3, as no separate written version is filed by the OP No.3. OP No.2,BDO,Garadpur relying on the enquiry report of M.I. filed written version to the case as revealed from the written statement.
4. Heard the Ld. Counsels for OP No.1 and Ld. Govt. Pleader appearing for OP No.2 and complainant who appeared personally and case of the other Ops on merit gone through the documents, affidavits, counter affidavits filed into the dispute. The admitted facts of the case are that complainant is a APL category of consumer/beneficiary under PDS and OP No.1 Sri Banabihari Patra is the retailer of Madhusasan G.P. under Garadpur block entrusted to distribute the PDS materials to the villagers of Madhusasan G.P. OP No.2 to 5 are Supervising/monitoring and administrative authorities in charge of PDS. It is also admitted that OP No.1’s wife is the’Sarpanch’ of Madhusasan G.P. It is further admitted that on allegation of the complainant on non-disbursement of PDS commodities by OP No.1 an enquiry was held by M.I.,Garadpur(OP No.3) on the direction of OP No.2,BDO,Garadpur Block. It is found that complainant has not received the PDS commodities from September,2013 to 2015 and same are lying with the OP No.1 retailer till-date. The affidavits and counter affidavits filed in this regard are not legally sustainable. As the allegation of complainant regarding non-disbursement of PDS commodities are admitted facts, nothing to be interfered by this Forum though different reasons including political rivalarity etc. are shown by the Ops. In the next allegation complainant challenges the appointment of OP No.1 as a retailer. It is alleged that OP No.2 to 5 by violating the govt. orders has appointed the OP No.1 as fair price shop retailer. But OP No.2 in his written statement and enquiry report of OP No.3 categorically denies that OP No.2’s wife who is a ‘Sarpanch’ is not member of any vigilance committee or any advisory committee. Complainant to substantiate his case filed Xerox copy of the Gazette Notification of Deptt. of Food Supplies & Consumer Welfare,Govt. of Odisha dtd. 13.03.208 and the same departments letter NoEC-C-37/11-15132/FS & CW dtd. 03.09.11 and letter No.FS(F)-1-11-1631 FS & CW dtd. 04.01.2012. Clause-5) of the Gazette Notification reveals that “No dealer shall hold a license to deal in commodity under the PDS under this order if he or any of his family members have a commercial interest in a business in or are commercial users of the said commodity or a commodity closely related to the said commodity or is a member of any advisory or vigilance committee or any other committee with supervision of the PDS”. Sub-clause (iv) of the Clause – 5 defines the word family members. As per the FS & cW letter No.15132 dtd. 03.09.2011 in clause 7 ‘Sarpanch’ of the concerned panchayat is the ‘chairperson’ of the G.P. level Advisory committee. In the present dispute Op No.2,4 and 5 in their written statement denies that wife of the OP No.1 retailer who is a Sarpanch is not a member of any advisory committee.
Nothing is brought before this Forum that whether the name of the retailer’s wife, who is a Sarpanch has been excluded from the Advisory committee as per the letter of the State Govt. Or not ? If the retailers wife is a member of the G.P. level advisory committee (GPLAC) then it is a gross violation of the State Govt.’s standing instruction in relation to appointment of OP No.1 who is a fair price shop retailer. The higher authorities of the Dist. Administration should take the matter seriously and to maintain the sanctity of the instruction issued by the State Govt. For appointment of fair price shop retailer.
At the time of hearing all the contesting Ops equivocally challenges the maintainability of the complaint by submitting that the complainant can not be treated as a ‘consumer’ as per Section-2(d)(i) of the C.P.Act,1986. Complainant to substantiate his case filed a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 4432-445 of 2012 arises out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 3499-3517 of 2011 where Hon’ble Justice T.S. Thakur elaborately defines the definition of ’consumer’, for the better appreciation we quote part of the paragraph-3 “ xxxxxx”. The word ‘consumer is a comprehensive expression. It extends from a person who buys any commodity to consume either as eatable or otherwise from a shop, business house, corporation, store, fair price shop to use private or public ‘service’. In a broader analysis of position of law a complaint against a fair price shop retailer is maintainable and the buyer of the product is well within the definition of word ‘consumer’. But in the present case when it is an admitted fact that complainant was not receiving the PDS commodities from OP No.1 retailer since long for whatsoever reason, the relationship between complainant and OP No.1 retailer is ceased because no ‘consideration is paid prior to post-delivery of PDS commodities to the retailer. There is no ‘buyer’ and ‘consumer’ relationship between the parties and the case laws cited by the complainant is not applicable to the present complaint. If the allegations of the complaint are facts it is the duty of authorities i.e. OP No.2 to 5 to look into the matter and to take appropriate steps if the State Govt. directions are violate and not properly implemented. The allegation of delay and non-furnishing of in formations under RTI as raised by the complainant are not within the purview of this Forum. Under the RTI Act,2005 separate provisions have been described to redress the grievance on failure to obtain the accurate informations.
Having observations reflected above, it is suggested that Marketing Inspector(OP No.3) fix a particular date will give an intimation by Regd. Post to complainant to receive his pending PDS commodities from OP No.1-retailer. In the date of disbursement of PDS commodities the OP No.3 or his authorized officer will remain present during the transactions. The process is to be completed within one month of receipt of this order.
Accordingly, the complaint is disposed of without any cost.
Pronounced in the open Court, this the 12th day of September,2016.
