K.Joseph Kamahassan, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2022 Latest Caselaw 1268 AP

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 1268 AP
Judgement Date : 11 March, 2022

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

K.Joseph Kamahassan, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 11 March, 2022

                               1




THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

             WRIT PETITION No.6049 of 2022

ORDER:

The Writ Petition is filed questioning the proceedings of

respondent No.4 dated 03.01.2022 terminating the petitioner

as Stage-II contractor, Tadipatri MLS Point, Ananthapuramu

District and blacklisting for a period of five years without

considering his explanation as arbitrary and illegal.

2. Sri Nagaraju Naguru, learned counsel for the petitioner

as well as Sri P.Hemachandra, learned Standing Counsel

appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 5 submits that the Stage-I

contractor filed W.P.No.27855 of 2021 against the similar

proceedings and the said writ petition was allowed on

09.02.2022 by observing as follows:

17. Another significant aspect which also takes away the very basis of the case of the respondents and cuts the root of the matter is that in the impugned order dated 24.11.2021, respondent No.2 herein referred to an inspection undertaken by the Tahsildar and according to respondent No.2, the Tahsildar inspected the MLS point on 13.08.2021 and found certain variations in the stock. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously denies the veracity of the said report and the contends that the said report has been brought into existence only for the purpose of justifying the impugned action and in reality, no such inspection was undertaken. In fact, the report of the Tahsildar, which formed the basis for respondent No.2 to arrive at the conclusion of the petitioners, is also filed along with the counter affidavit as a material paper. In the said report dated 25.08.2021, the Tahsildar, Tadipatri stated that on the directions of the Joint Collector, he conducted cursory review on 13.08.2021 at the MLS point. According to the Tahsildar, pursuant to the instructions received from the Joint Collector at 2-50 p.m. on 14.08.2021, he conducted such inspection on 13.08.2021.

This statement creates any amount of suspicion on the veracity of the holding of inspection, because when the Joint Collector issued instructions on 14.08.2021 at 2-50 p.m., the question of holding inspection on 13.08.2021 appears to be impracticable and is a human impossibility. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that such a report of the Tahsildar dated 25.08.2021, which formed the basis for respondent No.2 to initiate the impugned action, cannot be conferred with any credence. It is also pertinent to note in this context that the Tahsildar, Tadipatri, in the report dated 25.08.2021 also made an observation that during the verification, he could not cull out what exactly the quantity of the PDS rice diverted from the MLS point. It is also significant to note in this context that in the mahazarnama dated 14.08.2021, it is mentioned that the PDS rice distributed to the poor was collected, showing higher price with an intention to transport the same to the Karnataka State. In this connection, it may also be pertinent to refer to the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In Shukla's case (1 supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph No.13 held in the following manner:

"13. At the cost of repetition, we may notice, that this Court has consistently taken the view that recording of reasons is an essential feature of dispensation of justice. A litigant who approaches the court with any grievance in accordance with law is entitled to know the reasons for grant or rejection of his prayer. Reasons are the soul of orders. Non-recording of reasons could lead to dual infirmities; firstly, it may cause prejudice to the affected party and secondly, more particularly, hamper the proper administration of justice. These principles are not only applicable to administrative or executive actions, but they apply with equal force and, in fact, with a greater degree of precision to judicial pronouncements. A judgment without reasons causes prejudice to the person against whom it is pronounced, as that litigant is unable to know the ground which weighed with the court in rejecting his claim and also causes impediments in his taking adequate and appropriate grounds before the higher court in the event of challenge to that judgment.

Now, we may refer to certain judgments of this Court as well as of the High Courts which have taken this view."

19. A perusal of the impugned order dated 24.11.2021 also shows that respondent No.2 herein, though referred to the explanation submitted by the petitioner, simply stated that the explanation was unable to be considered. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shukla (1 supra), the said reason assigned by respondent No.2 herein for resorting to the impugned action is neither sustainable nor tenable. Having issued the show cause notice and having acknowledged the explanation offered by the petitioner, there is absolutely no justification on the part of respondent No.2 in not answering the contentions raised in the said explanation. It is also a settled law, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill (2 supra), that the justification for issuing the impugned order cannot be permitted to be raised in the counter affidavit, when there was failure to assign the same in the impugned order.

20. In view of the above reasons and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above referred judgments, this Court has absolutely no scintilla of hesitation nor any shadow of doubt to arrive at the conclusion that the impugned action cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

21. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned order dated 24.11.2021 passed by respondent No.2, vide File No.FCS51-13022/49/2021- MRKT SEC - APSCSCL. There shall be no order as to costs of the Writ Petition.