Smt M.Satyavathi vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh Rept., ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2073 AP

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 2073 AP
Judgement Date : 19 April, 2023

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Smt M.Satyavathi vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh Rept., ... on 19 April, 2023

    THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

             WRIT PETITION No.40943 of 2015

ORDER:

This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India is filed seeking the following relief:-

"to issue Writ, order or direction declaring the Order

passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer Srikakulam

Srikakulam District the 3rd respondent herein vide

Rc.No.2279/2015/CS dt.26.11.2015 cancelling the

authorization of the petitioner herein as illegal, arbitrary

without jurisdiction in utter violation of principles of Natural

Justice and contrary to the provisions of A P State Public

Distribution System Control Order 2008 and set aside the

same".

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing

for the respondents.

The case of the petitioner is that he was selected and

appointed as Fair Price Shop dealer, Kotapalem-I, Shop

No.45 in Allivalasa Village, in Ranasthalam Mandal,

Srikakulam District in the year 2007. Thereafter, basing

the inspection report submitted by Inspector of Vigilance

and Enforcement department, the Tahsildar, Ranasthalam,

the 4th respondent herein sent a report to the R.D.O.,

Srikakulam for taking necessary action. On receipt of the

report of the Tahsildar dated 16.10.2015, the Revenue

Divisional Officer without initiating any disciplinary action

has cancelled the authorization of the F.P dealer. Hence,

the present Writ Petition is filed.

During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that the impugned order dated 26.11.2015 passed

by the 3rd respondent cancelling the authorization of the

petitioner is contrary to the observations made by is Court

in B.Manjula Vs. District collector, Civil Supplies,

Kurnool and others1, wherein this Court observed as

follows:-

10. An enquiry pre-supposes an opportunity of personal hearing to the dealer to explain his/her case based on the records such as sales and stock registers. If need be, such enquiry must also include recording the sworn statement of the dealer and witnesses, if any, from his/her side. In cases where either card holders or other persons sent any complaint, they must also be examined in the presence of the dealer or his/her lawyer and the dealer

2015(4) ALT 572

shall be given an opportunity of cross- examining such persons. The licencing /disciplinary authority shall also supply to the dealer all the reports on which he is likely to place reliance to the detriment of the dealer. Unless the dealer has no explanation at all to offer, the licensing/disciplinary authority is bound to hold a detailed enquiry.

11. The experience of this Court reveals that the appointing authorities of fair price shop dealers are dispensing with the requirement of making personal enquiry by summoning the dealers. They are merely relying upon the reports sent by their subordinates i.e., Deputy Tahsildars and Tahsildars, behind the back of the dealers and resting their decisions solely upon those reports. This procedure is anathema to the concept of enquiry which otherwise means affording the dealer an opportunity of a fair hearing.

12. The experience of this Court reveals that the appointing authorities of fair price shop dealers are dispensing with the requirement of making personal enquiry by summoning the dealers. They are merely relying upon the reports sent by their subordinates i.e., Deputy Tahsildars and Tahsildars, behind the back of the dealers and resting their decisions solely upon those reports. This procedure is anathema to the concept of enquiry which otherwise means affording the dealer an opportunity of a fair hearing.

As regards the second mandatory requirement under sub-clause (5) of Clause 5, namely; reasons to be recorded in writing, reasons constitute the heart and soul of a

decision. In Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others , the Supreme Court, while dealing with an order passed by the Central Government under Rule 55 of the A.P. Mineral Concession Rules 1960, emphasized on the need for giving reasons in support of the order. The Supreme Court inter alia held that the condition to give reasons introduces clarity and excludes or at any rate minimises arbitrariness; it gives satisfaction to the party against whom the order is made; and it also enables an appellate or supervisory Court to keep the Tribunals within bounds.

13. In G. Vallikumari Vs. Andhra Education Society and others , the Supreme Court, at para-19, held:

The requirement of recording reasons by every quasi- judicial or even an administrative authority entrusted with the task of passing an order adversely affecting an individual and communication thereof to the affected person is one of the recognised facets of the rules of natural justice and violation thereof has the effect of vitiating the order passed by the authority concerned.

15. Unfortunately, a perusal of the impugned order shows that respondent No.3 has not even attempted to hold an enquiry and he has allowed himself to be swayed away by the report of the Tahsildar, Gonegandla without trying to test the veracity of the explanation offered by the petitioner. Unless the petitioner is given an opportunity of substantiating her explanation, it would be a grave travesty of justice to reject her explanation without holding an

enquiry. As respondent No.3 has not followed this procedure, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set-aside. The orders of respondent Nos.2 and 1, which confirmed the order of respondent No.3 are also set-aside. The fair price shop authorization of the petitioner stands restored and she shall be permitted to function as the fair price shop dealer. This order, however, will not prevent respondent No.3 from holding a detailed enquiry in the light of the observations made hereinbefore and pass a fresh order.

Considering the submissions of the learned counsel

for the petitioner and the observations made by this Court

in the above said Judgment, this Court is of the opinion

that the impugned orders dated 26.11.2015 of the 3rd

respondent is contrary to the directions of this Court in the

above stated Judgment. Hence, the impugned orders

dated 26.11.2015 of the 3rd respondent is set aside and the

respondents are directed to continue the petitioner as Fair

Price Shop Dealer in Kotapalem-I, Shop No.45 in Allivalasa

Village, Ranasthalam Mandal, Srikakulam District.

However, liberty is given to the respondents to conduct

enquiry and take appropriate action in the matter.