Shl Group Chittoor Dist vs Joint Coollector Cs Chittoor 5 ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2240 AP

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 2240 AP
Judgement Date : 24 April, 2023

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Shl Group Chittoor Dist vs Joint Coollector Cs Chittoor 5 ... on 24 April, 2023

    THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

               WRIT PETITION No.16972 of 2016

ORDER:

This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India is filed seeking the following relief:-

"to issue Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the impugned order in Roc.No.A3/1280/2015, dated 13.10.2015 issued by the 2nd respondent cancelling the authorization of the petitioner to run the F.P Shop and the consequential orders passed in D.Dis(C1)504/2015 dated 26.03.2016 of the 1st respondent by rejecting the appeal submitted by the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and unconstitutional and set aside the same with a direction to the respondent to continue the petitioner as FP Shop Dealer at Shop No.29 in Chettapenta Village of Palamaneru Mandal with all consequential benefits.......". 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 the

authorized dealer of Fair Price Shop No.29 of Pengaragunta

Village of Palamaneru Mandal and working as Fair Price

Shop Dealer since 12 years. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent

has issued show-cause notice dated 17.07.2015 to the

petitioner and the petitioner has submitted his

explanation to the said notice on 03.08.2015. But, without

considering the explanation of the petitioner, the 2 nd

respondent has passed proceedings bearing

No.Rc.No.A3/1280/2015, dated 13.10.2015 cancelling the

authorization of petitioner's Fair Price Shop. Aggrieved by

the same, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the 1 st

respondent and the same was rejected vide orders dated

26.03.2016. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ

Petition is filed.

During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that the impugned order dated 13.10.2015 passed

by the 2nd 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

2015(4) ALT 572

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

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 13.10.2015 of the 2nd

respondent and the orders dated 26.03.2016 of the 1st

respondent, are contrary to the directions of this Court in

the above stated Judgment. Hence, the impugned orders

dated 13.10.2015 of the 2nd respondent and the orders

dated 26.03.2016 of the 1st respondent, are set aside. The

respondents are directed to continue the petitioner as Fair

Price Shop Dealer of F.P.Shop No.29 in Chettapenta Village

of Palamaneru Mandal. However, liberty is given to the