M Ramanjineyulu vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 9179 AP

                                        1


                   HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

MAIN CASE No.: W.P.No. 38679 of 2022

                             PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl.
                                             ORDER

No      DATE
                   DEV,J
      29.11.2022                   W.P.No.38679 of 2022
                       Notice before admission.

Learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies takes

notice for the respondents and sought time to file

Counter Affidavit.

Post after four weeks for filing Counter Affidavits by

the respondents

_ ____ DEV,J

I.A.No.1 of 2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Government Pleader appearing for the

respondents and perused the record.

The learned counsel for the petitioners contends

that the authorization of the petitioner is cancelled by the

respondent No.3 vide proceedings in

R.C.No.d1CS/1142/2022, dated 18.11.2022, which is in

violation of the principles of natural justice.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends

that the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the

charges leveled against him in the show cause notice are

not properly considered by the respondent No.3 while

passing the cancellation Order. Learned Counsel also

contends that opportunity for personal hearing is not

accorded to the petitioner before passing the cancellation

order.

On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader

submits that when the Advocate filed Vakalat on behalf of

the petitioner, opportunity for personal hearing to the

petitioner need not be provided. Learned Government

Pleader further contends that in the light of the Judgment

of the Hon'ble High Court in Tin Plate Co. Of India

Limited v State of Bihar and others ( 1998) 8 SCC

272, wherein it is held that as and when the appellate

remedy is available, filing a Petition under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India is not permissible.

Having heard the submissions of the respective

counsel and upon perusal of the material available on

record, it appears the respondent No.3 without

considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner

for the charges leveled against him, passed the impugned

Order. No findings are recorded stating the reasons as to

why explanation submitted by the petitioner is found not

convincing. On perusal of the impugned Order, it clearly

shows that opportunity for personal hearing to the

petitioner is not accorded. In the prima facie opinion of

this Court, the impugned Order is in violation of the

principles of natural justice.

This Court is not having any dispute with regard to

the ratio laid down in the judgment cited by the learned

Government Pleader, but when violation of principles of

natural justice is there, this Court is entitled to invoke its

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

though the petitioner did not exhaust his alternative

remedy.

For the above reasons, there shall be interim stay as

prayed for.

_ ____ DEV,J Note: Issue CC today.

B/o

eha