1989 PLP 3958 (MLD)

MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.‑‑This Intro‑Court Appeal arms from the judgment of the learned Single Judge, whereby he on 2‑9‑1989 dismissed Writ Petition No.97/89/BWP filed by Maqbool Ahmad appellant/petitioner against Director Food, Punjab, Lahore and two others for declaring order, dated 7‑5‑1988 passed by the Deputy Director Food (Bahawalpur Region) for the recovery of Rs.1,38,985, the price of 66.820 tons wheat, from the petitioner, to be without lawful authority and of no legal affect.

2. The facts leading to this Intro‑Court Appeal, briefly, are that Maqbool Ahmad petitioner was posted as Supervisor and Incharge of Godown in Centre Khatan district Bahawalnagar in the year 1983‑

84. During 1983‑84 scheme the petitioner had despatched 1247 bags weighing 118.468 tons wheat to P.R. Centre, at Lahore. He despatched 11270 bags weighing 1070.475 tons wheat to P.R. Centre, Toba Tek Singh and 20005 bags weighing 1988.475 tons wheat to P.R. Centre, Islamabad. I and II the receiptant offices, however, received less wheat by 66.220 tons. So vide impugned order, it was directed that an amount of Rs. 1,36,885 being the cost of 66.820 tons wheat found short at the aforesaid centres, be recovered from the petitioner and deposited into Government treasury within one month. On this the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 97/89/BWP challenging the impugned order which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge‑ on 29‑1 1989. Hence this appeal.

3. Before us the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that no show- cause notice was issued to the appellant before directing recovery of the amount of shortage of wheat from him and he was condemned unheard; that the appellant being Supervisor incharge of Godown was not responsible for enroute shortage and that the writ petition has been dismissed without legal and factual justification.

4. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant with care. We have not been able to persuade ourselves to agree with him. We find that the learned Single Judge has applied his conscious mind to the matter in controversy and has given sound and cogent reasons for dismissing the writ petition. In his judgment the learned Single Judge has stated that "the petitioner has not convinced me as to how the colossal shortage of wheat weighing 66.820 tons valuing Rs.1,36,985/60 paisas occurred." We find that under instruction No. DF (ADF‑II) Coord‑2 (123)/85 issued by the Director of Food, Punjab, Lahore, on 6‑4‑1985 the Supervisor In-charge of Godown is bound to deposit the value of the enroute shortage without waiting for any orders from any authority as the question of enroute shortage attains finality both in case shortage is verified by the Despatch Staff itself or otherwise and it is not open to review m any case. Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the instructions for dealing with enroute shortage storages may be re‑produced advantageously:‑‑ "(viii) It will be the duty of the Food Official Uncharged of the despatching Centre either to go personally or depute another responsible official under him for verification immediately on receipt of the telegraphic call, Should he fail to arrange verification and settlement of the reported transit shortage within ten days of the date of issue of the telegram from the destination, the Incharge of the receiving Centre will request his own District Food Controller for check‑weighment of the dispute consignment and the shortage assessed by the latter will be communicated to the despatching end through G.P.13, under intimation to the District Food Controller of the despatching district. The stock will be booked at the destination centre after deducting this shortage from the advised weight, and the despatching staff will have to make good the shortage. (ix) If any transit shortage verified by the despatching staff on their own check‑weighment at destination remains unsettled, the District Food Controller of the despatching district will take immediate step to fix responsibility and effect recovery thereof." It is thus very much obvious that the submissions made by the learned counsel that the appellant could not be required to deposit the, price of the shortage of wheat detected by the department, is devoid of force and substance, He has not been able to point out any provision of law requiring the giving of show‑cause notice to him. Under the instructions, he was bound to deposit the value of the enroute shortage without waiting for any orders from any authority.

5. For what has been said above, there being no merit, the appeal is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./M‑1577/L Appeal dismissed.