THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.39758 of 2014 26-12-2014 Bandham Varalaxmi . Petitioner The State of Telangana Rep. by its Secretary Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS.I) Department, Secretariat, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and 2 others. Respondents

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY            

WRIT PETITION No.39758 of 2014  

26-12-2014

Bandham Varalaxmi . Petitioner

The State of Telangana  Rep. by its Secretary Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil
Supplies (CS.I) Department,   Secretariat, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad  and
2 others. Respondents

Counsel for Petitioner:  Sri C.Prakash

Counsel for Respondents: GP for Civil Supplies (TS)
                               
<GIST:

>HEAD NOTE:  

? CITATIONS:

(2010) 2 SCC 497
(2010) 3 SCC 732
(2010) 4 SCC 785
W.P.No.32713 of 2011, dated 26.11.2014



THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY          

WRIT PETITION No.39758 of 2014  

Dated: 26.12.2014


The court made the following:

ORDER:

      This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside proceedings
No.F/6861/2014, dated 19.12.2014, of respondent No.2, whereby he has
cancelled the petitioners fair price shop authorisation.

      I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Government Pleader for Civil Supplies (TS).

      The petitioners fair price shop authorisation was initially suspended
by respondent No.2 by order dated 04.12.2014 on the allegation that she
has entered 27 bogus ration cards with adhaar seeding and attached
photos of other persons to the said ration cards by impersonating the
original cardholders. Later on a show cause notice was issued on
12.12.2014 by framing the following charge:

You have prepared bogus cards of the deceased and non local
candidates with their protographs and Aadhar cards.

        The petitioner submitted her explanation, denying creation of any
such bogus cards.  By the impugned order, respondent No.2 has cancelled
the petitioners authorisation.

      A perusal of the impugned order shows that the same does not
contain detailed reasons in support of the conclusion that the petitioner
has created bogus cards.  All that respondent No.2 has stated in his order
is as under:

On verification of the explanation submitted by the Fair Price
Shop dealer vide reference 4th cited, it is noticed that she
simply denied the allegations levelled against her.  She was (sic
has) not produced any document (sic documentary) evidence.
       
      The law is well settled that an order adversely affecting the
interests of a party requires to be supported by proper reasons.  This is
the principle of law, which needs to be followed not only by the Courts,
but also by every quasi judicial and administrative authorities.  The
necessity to give reasons is emphasised in a well articulated Judgment by
G.S.Singhvi, J, in G. Vallikumari vs. Andhra Education Society and
others .  It is instructive to re-produce the relevant part of the said
judgment, at para-19, which is as under:

    .   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
recognized facets of the rules of natural justice and violation
thereof has the effect of vitiating the order passed by the
authority concerned.

This view has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in the subsequent
judgments viz., Secretary and Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall vs.
Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samiti & others  and Assistant
Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and  
Leasing, Kota vs. Shukla & Brothers .

        As noted above, the impugned order does not contain any reasons
whatsoever, except stating that the petitioner has not produced any
documentary evidence in support of her explanation, respondent No.2 has
not discussed the material collected in support of the charge against the
petitioner.  He has not even discussed in detail the contents of report,
dated 03.12.2014, of respondent No.3.  Evidently, the petitioner was not
supplied the said report.  As the order of termination of licence causes
serious adverse consequences to the petitioner, it is obligatory on the part
of respondent No.2 to conduct a detailed enquiry. This Court, in
B.Manjula vs. District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool & others ,
has discussed in detail the procedure to be followed by the appointing
authority in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the fair price
shop dealers.  Respondent No.2 is, therefore, directed to follow the said
procedure.  In order to enable respondent No.2 to follow the said
judgment, a copy thereof shall be enclosed to this order.
       
      For the above-mentioned reasons, the impugned order cannot be
sustained and the same is, accordingly, set aside.  Respondent No.2 is
directed to hold a detailed enquiry, by giving the petitioner an opportunity
of being heard and following the procedure as discussed in B.Manjula
(4-supra), and pass a final order within two months from the date of
receipt of this order.  As the petitioners authorisation is under suspension
and having regard to the seriousness of the allegation made against her,
it is desirable that suspension of her authorisation shall be continued till
passing of a final order.

        The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed to the extent indicated
above.
      As a sequel, W.P.M.P.No.49870 of 2014, filed by the petitioner for
interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.
_____________________  
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J    
26.12.2014

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.