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
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
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.