Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Proceeding Sheet vs District Collector on 7 March, 2023
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE No.: W.P.No.5650 of 2023
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl.
ORDER
No DATE
07.03.2023 DR, J
The Writ Petition is filed declaring the
action of the 4th respondent in issuing the
proceedings dated 26.09.2022, wherein
cancelled the petitioner's authorization of fair
price shop dealership of shop No.0816035,
China Kothapalli Village, Addanki Mandal,
Bapatla District (Old Prakasam District) and
the consequential appeal order passed by the
3rd respondent dated 10.02.2023, dismissing
the appeal filed by the petitioner mechanically
without conducting proper enquiry is illegal
and arbitrary.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that the cancellation orders issued
by the primary authority on 26.09.2022 are
contrary to the procedure contemplated under
the Control Orders, 2018, not only that the
same is also contrary to the observations made
by this Hon'ble Court in Smt. B. Manjula Vs.
District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool
and others reported in 2015(4) ALT 572,
wherein the identical issue cropped up before
this Hon'ble Court which reads as follows:
"12. 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, AIR
1966 Supreme Court 671, 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, (2010) 2
SCC 497 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."
14. In Secretary and Curator, Victoria
Memorial Hall Vs. Howrah Ganatantrik
Nagrik Samity and others, (2010) 3 SCC
732 the Supreme Court held at paras 40, 41
and 42, as under:
"It is a settled legal proposition that not
only an administrative but also a
judicial order must be supported by
reasons, recorded in it. Thus, while
deciding an issue, the court is bound to
give reasons for its conclusion. It is the
duty and obligation on the part of the
court to record reasons while disposing
of the case. The hallmark of an order
and exercise of judicial power by a
judicial forum is to disclose its reasons
by itself and giving of reasons has
always been insisted upon as one of the
fundamentals of sound administration
of justice-delivery system, to make
known that there had been proper and
due application of mind to the issue
before the court and also as an
essential requisite of the principles of
natural justice. "The giving of reasons
for a decision is an essential attribute of
judicial and judicious disposal of a
matter before courts, and which is the
only indication to know about the
manner and quality of exercise
undertaken, as also the fact that the
court concerned had really applied its
mind." (Vide State of Orissa v.
Dhaniram Luhar (2004) 5 SCC 568
and State of Rajasthan v. Sohan
Lal (2004) 5 SCC 573).
Reason is the heartbeat of every
conclusion. It introduces clarity in an
order and without the same, it becomes
lifeless. Reasons substitute subjectivity
by objectivity. Absence of reasons
renders the order
indefensible/unsustainable particularly
when the order is subject to further
challenge before a higher forum.
(Vide: Raj Kishore Jha v. State of
Bihar (2003) 11 SCC 519, SCC
p.527, para 19; Vishnu Dev Sharma
v. State of U.P. (2008) 3 SCC 172;
SAIL v. STO ((2008) 9 SCC 407, State
of Uttaranchal v. Sunil Kumar
Singh Negi (2008) 11 SCC 205, U.P.
SRTC v. Jagdish Prasad
Gupta (2009) 12 SCC 609, Ram Phal
v. State of Haryana (2009) 3 SCC
258, Mohd. Yusuf v. Faji
and State of H.P. v. Sada
Ram (2009) 4 SCC 422).
Thus, it is evident that the recording of
reasons is a principle of natural justice
and every judicial order must be
supported by reasons recorded in
writing. It ensures transparency and
fairness in decision making. The person
who is adversely affected may know,
as to why his application has been
rejected."
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 authorisation 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."
In the above said judgment this Hon'ble
Court has held the mode of enquiry, despite
the observations made by this Hon'ble Court
and also in several Writ Petitions, the
authorities have not even care to conduct a
specific enquiry, just based on the
submission/report by the lower authorities,
the primary authority has passed the orders,
which clearly contravenes Clause 8(4) of
Andhra Pradesh State Targeted (Public
Distribution System) Control Order, 2018.
Considering the submissions and also
the observations made by this Court in the
above said judgment, the impugned orders
passed by the 3rd respondent dated
10.02.2023 as well as the orders passed by
the 4th respondent dated 26.09.2022 are
suspended.
Post after four(4) weeks.
_________
DR, J
Note: C.C by 2 days
B/o.
TPS
