Procedural requirements must be scrupulously followed, and decisions that are illegal, irrational, and unfair cannot be legally sustained.

NARAYANA KURUP, J.: - The petitioner in the Original Petitions is the appellant in both these writ appeals. The writ appeals are directed against the common judgement of the learned single Judge in O.P, 6194 and 10181 of 1998 dismissing the Original Petitions upholding the impugned orders therein. the brief facts of the case are as follows:

2. The appellant-petitioner is the licensee of a Wholesale Ration Shop viz; A.W.D. (Authorised Wholesale Depot) No. 16 of Nedumangad Taluk. On receipt of a complaint, the Controller of Rationing, Board of Revenue(CS), Trivandrum inspected the appellant's shop on 1-11-1997 and detected shortage of 241.89 quintals of Fine Boiled Rice and four other irregularities. The Controller suspended the authorisation of A.W.D as per proceedings No. CS-A5-46146/97 dated the District Collector, Trivandrum who in exercise of the powers conferred under Clause 51(8) of the Kerala Rationing Order passed Ext. P2 order in O.P. No. 6194 of 1998-K finding that there was shortage and that the cost of rice found short as reported by the Controller of rationing will be recovered from the appellant and the entire security deposit to be forfeited to the Government. The challenge in writ appeal No. 2341 of 1998 is against the aforesaid Ext. P2 order of the District Collector.

3. Writ appeal No. 2340 of 1998 is directed against the judgement of the learned single judge in O.P. 10181/1998 dismissing the same upholding Exts. P6 and P7 orders therein whereby the 3rd respondent viz; the Taluk Supply Officer, Nedumangad, Trivandrum had forfeited the value of 237 quintals of Fine Boiled Rice.

4. We heard counsel on both sides.

5. The specific case set up by the Department is that at the time of inspection, there was a shortage of 241.89 quintals of Fine Boiled Rice. In the stock held by the appellant-petitioner. However, we are of the opinion that the said shortage has not been fully established following the existing instructions laid down in the Civil Supplies Manual. Even in Ext. P2 order passed by the District Collector, It is admitted that "both in terms of weighment and preparation of mahazar, the Controller of Rationing had not complied with the existing instructions laid down in the Civil Supplies Manual". The mahazar has been prepared based on average weight and it is on that basic the shortage has been found to the tune of 241.89 quintals of fine Boiled Rice in the Stock. Admittedly the Controller of Rationing has not caused a proper inspection of the depot by verifying the stock kept in the depot and has not ascertained the stock by physical measurement. In this connection, it has to be noted that on suspension of licence the stock was transferred to another wholesale dealer who reported that there is an excess of 237 quintals of the stock transferred to him instead of shortages as noticed at the time of inspection. If that is the position, the allegation that there is deficiency of 241 quintals of rice cannot be taken as correct and the shortage can only be of 4.89 quintals. According to the appellant-petitioner, there is no deficiency of stock even to the extent of the aforesaid 4.89 quintals. Admittedly, the Controller has not physically weighed the entire stock in which case, we are of the view that the appellant-petitioner cannot be made responsible for the irregularities noted against him. The District Collector having noted the aforesaid irregularities in verification of stock was not correct in issuing Ext. P2 on the ground that at the time of inspection, the dealer has not registered her protest. The fact that the appellant-petitioner has not registered her protest is not sufficient to enter and adverse finding, resulting in civil consequence to the dealer. The Department in such a case should support its case by valid materials gathered at the time of inspection and is not expected to take any mileage of the so-called non-registering of any protest by the appellant-petitioner which is of no consequen