Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 512 (KAR)

N. THAMMANNA v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (FOOD), KOLAR

2017-02-22

A.S.BOPANNA

body2017
ORDER : A.S. Bopanna, J. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order, dated 11.12.2015 and the order, dated 01.10.2014, as also, the order, dated 23.05.2015. The petitioner in that light is seeking issue of mandamus to direct respondent No. 1 to hold enquiry on the grounds urged by the petitioner as required under the KEC (PDS) Control Order. 2. The petitioner was issued a licence to distribute the food grains to the cardholders. The case of the petitioner is that at no point in time, the petitioner had been authorised to sell kerosene oil on retail. However, since another authorization holder by name Sri. P. Venkateshappa, who had been authorised to distribute kerosene oil, was alleged to have committed some default and action was initiated against him and an alternate arrangement is said to have been made through the order, dated 01.06.2013 directing the petitioner to distribute kerosene oil to the cardholders, who were receiving kerosene oil from said Sri. P. Venkateshappa. In that regard, it is the case of the respondents that the petitioner had not diligently distributed the kerosene oil and since, there were complaints from the cardholders, a show-cause notice, dated 31.01.2013 was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner has submitted his reply to the same as at Annexure-D to the petition. 3. The respondents not being satisfied with the reply has proceeded to pass an order, dated 01.10.2014, whereby the Deputy Commissioner has ordered the cancellation of the authorization issued in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner claiming to be aggrieved had preferred an appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority through the order, dated 23.05.2015 has dismissed the appeal. It is in that circumstance, the petitioner is before this Court assailing the said orders. Since, the revision filed by the petitioner was also rejected by the revisional authority through the order, dated 11.12.2015, the petitioner has called in question the said order as well. 4. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the show-cause notice was limited to the aspect relating to certain irregularities said to have been committed in the distribution of kerosene oil, which had been assigned to the petitioner as an alternate arrangement on initiating action against one Sri. P. Venkateshappa. 4. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the show-cause notice was limited to the aspect relating to certain irregularities said to have been committed in the distribution of kerosene oil, which had been assigned to the petitioner as an alternate arrangement on initiating action against one Sri. P. Venkateshappa. In that light, it is contended that insofar as that aspect of the matter, the petitioner in his reply had taken up the contention that the very order making alternate arrangement had not been communicated to the petitioner and as such, the question of petitioner distributing kerosene oil to the cardholders of said Sri. P. Venkateshappa or to the cardholders of the petitioner does not arise. It is further contended that though such contentions have been putforth, the Deputy Commissioner, without considering the aspect the allegations relating to the petitioner having committed default relating to distribution of commodities has proceeded to pass the impugned order. In that regard, it is contended that neither the appellate authority nor the revisional authority has adverted to these aspects of the matter and as such, the orders are not justified. 5. The respondents through objection statement have sought to justify the order passed by the original as well as appellate authority and the revisional authority. 6. In a matter of the present nature, what is necessary to be noticed is that the action of the respondents through issue of show-cause notice, dated 31.01.2013 alleging that the petitioner has committed default in the matter of distribution of kerosene oil, which had been made as an alternate arrangement and in that regard, it was stated that the petitioner had unauthorisedly issued the distribution to one Sri. Ramappa to carryon with the distribution of kerosene oil and therefore, in that circumstances, the cardholders has also complained on this aspect of the matter. 7. In response to such show-cause notice, when the petitioner had replied and denied the very allegations made against him, the consideration ought to have been made by the respondents in that regard. Ramappa to carryon with the distribution of kerosene oil and therefore, in that circumstances, the cardholders has also complained on this aspect of the matter. 7. In response to such show-cause notice, when the petitioner had replied and denied the very allegations made against him, the consideration ought to have been made by the respondents in that regard. However, a perusal of the order passed by the original as well as appellate authority would indicate that it has proceeded beyond the said show-cause notice and the order to cancel even the authorization, which existed in favour of the petitioner was also made though what was in issue was with regard to the irregularities said to have been committed with regard to the distribution of kerosene oil, which has been made as an alternate arrangement. 8. One other aspect which is to be kept in view is that the said Sri. P. Venkateshappa, against whom the action has been taken, was also before this Court against the order passed by the appellate authority. In W.P.No.49373/2013, this Court, by order, dated 22.11.2013 had set-aside the orders and remitted the matter for consideration in accordance with law. Therefore, in that circumstance also, if the said Sri. P. Venkateshappa succeeds in the said proceedings, in any event, the issue relating to the distribution of kerosene oil would be a matter, which would be subject to the said proceedings. 9. Therefore, in a circumstance where the petitioner contends that the alternate arrangement made was not within the knowledge of the petitioner and in that circumstance, no indication was made in the show-cause notice with regard to the irregularities alleged against the petitioner with regard to the authorization issued to the petitioner insofar as the food articles are concerned, the order of the present nature where the authorization issued to the petitioner is also ordered to be cancelled would not be justified. However, if in the final analysis if it is found that in fact the petitioner has committed any default with regard to the distribution of food articles relating to the authorization granted to the petitioner, certainly, the respondents would be entitled to issue a fresh show-cause notice to the petitioner and thereupon, initiate appropriate action in accordance with law. 10. In that view, the orders impugned, dated 11.12.2015, 23.05.2015 and 01.10.2014 impugned at Annexures-G1, F and E are quashed. 10. In that view, the orders impugned, dated 11.12.2015, 23.05.2015 and 01.10.2014 impugned at Annexures-G1, F and E are quashed. The respondents shall now permit the petitioner to lift the food grains to distribute to the cardholders assigned to the petitioner. Liberty is however reserved to the respondents to issue fresh show-cause notice, if need be and thereafter proceed in accordance with law. 11. Petition is accordingly disposed of.