Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 242 (AP)

Gondu Chinnammadu v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2021-04-06

M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

body2021
ORDER : 1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “….. to issue a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the proceedings in Rc.No.251/2019/S4, dated 24.02.2020 passed by the 3rd respondent, thereby cancelled temporary in-charge arrangement proceedings in Rc.No.1665/2016/CS, dated 29.09.2016 issued by the then Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam, who appointed the petitioner as temporary dealer to run FP Shop No.0119009 situated at Kistappeta Village, Srikakulam Mandal, Srikakulam District, without conducting enquiry, without considering the petitioner’s explanation and without recording reasons for cancellation of proceedings, dated 29.09.2016, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and provisions of Andhra Pradesh Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 and offends Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the proceedings, dated 24.02.2020 issued by the 3rd respondent and direct the respondents to continue her dealership by supplying essential commodities every month for distribution to the cardholders allotted to the said shop and pass such other order….” 2. The brief facts of the case are that earlier there was a permanent dealer by name Sri Simma Bhagavan Das, who committed certain irregularities and a case under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 is registered by the then Revenue Divisional Officer. 3. While the things stood thus, due to recent change of government in the State of Andhra Pradesh, due to local village political pressure the respondents without there being any suspension order or cancellation of the petitioner’s earlier in- charge arrangement proceedings, dated 29.09.2016 stopped release of essential commodities for the month of August, 2019. Thereafter, the same is challenged before this Court in W.P.No.11951 of 2019 and it was allowed by Order, dated 23.10.2019. Subsequently, a show cause notice in Rc.No.251/2019/S4, dated 24.01.2020 was issued to this petitioner alleging that the petitioner is not distributing essential commodities to the cardholders and caused inconvenience to the cardholders. 4. Thereafter, the same is challenged before this Court in W.P.No.11951 of 2019 and it was allowed by Order, dated 23.10.2019. Subsequently, a show cause notice in Rc.No.251/2019/S4, dated 24.01.2020 was issued to this petitioner alleging that the petitioner is not distributing essential commodities to the cardholders and caused inconvenience to the cardholders. 4. The 3rd respondent committed serious error in canceling the petitioner’s temporary in-charge arrangement proceedings, dated 29.09.2016 issued by the then Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam, without conducting enquiry, without considering the petitioner’s explanation and without recording reasons, warrants for such cancellation and it is contrary to the guidelines issued by this Court in C.Durga Srinivas Rao and others vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others, 2015 (6) ALD 359 and that the order is bereft of any reasons and requested to set aside the same. 5. Respondents filed counter affidavit denying the material allegations inter alia while admitting issuance of impugned proceedings questioned in the Writ Petition specifically contending that the petitioner was afforded reasonable opportunity at every stage. It is further contended that as the irregularity committed by the temporary dealer found to be grave in nature, the Joint Collector, Srikakulam, being the disciplinary authority and by exercising the powers vested with him, issued a show cause notice in Rc.No.251/2019/S4, dated 24.01.2020 to her and directed to submit her explanation within 7 days and accordingly, Articles of Charges have been framed on the above said lapses committed by her in maintenance of the said F.P. Shop. The disciplinary authority has afforded an opportunity of personal hearing to the temporary dealer on 22.02.2020 and accordingly she attended before the competent authority and filed her written explanation. The written explanation has been examined with reference to the irregularities committed by her in maintenance of the F.P. Shop and contravened the provisions under Clauses 10(a), 10(c), 10(d), 12(a), 12(g) of A.P.S.T.P.D.S Control Order, 2018 read with the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and violation of guidelines for F.P. Shop dealers as per G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 01.08.2018 of CA & FACS (CS-II) Dept., Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada, the same is not satisfactory and not convincing. Further, the Joint Collector, Srikakulam exercising powers vested with him U/s Clause 8(4) of APSPDS (Control) Orders, 2018 in Progs.Rc.No.251/2019/S4, dated 24.02.2020 cancelled the Self Help Group orders issued to Gondu Chinnammadu, Member, Rama Sudheer Self Help Group, Kistappapeta, Temporary Dealer, F.P.Shop No.0119099 of Kistappapeta Village, Srikakulam Mandal and District and with a liberty to file an appeal under the provisions of Clause 24(a) of APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018 before the District Collector, Srikakulam within 30 days from the date of receipt of the said order, by the aggrieved party and thus committed no irregularity and illegality in passing the order and requested to dismiss the Writ Petition. 6. During hearing, Sri Srinivas Ambati, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the impugned order is contrary to the guidelines issued by this Court in C.Durga Srinivas’s case (referred (1) supra), the order is bereft of any reasons, thereby the impugned order itself is illegal and contrary to law. He also further contended that no enquiry was conducted and thereby the impugned order is liable to be set aside in view of the law declared by this Court in K.Nirmala vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, LAWS (APH) 2012 (8) 93 and Thyrumala Setty Phanindra, S/o Bhaskara Rao vs. District Collector, LAWS (APH) 2013 (4) 36, on the strength of the principles laid down in the above judgments he requested to set aside the order impugned in this Writ Petition. 7. Whereas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents supported impugned order in all respects while specifically contending that this order was passed by the Joint Collector in terms of Clause 8(4) of the A.P. State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 affording opportunity to the petitioner at every stage and thereby the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. 8. As seen from the record, the petitioner was placed as in-charge dealer for the F.P Shop No.0119099 of Kistappapeta Village, Srikakulam Mandal and District, after terminating the authorization of Simma Bhagavan Das, permanent dealer for the above shop by proceedings, dated 29.09.2016, but as the respondents stopped supply of essential commodities to the petitioner for distribution to the cardholders, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition No.11951 of 2019, whereby a direction was issued by this Court on 23.10.2019 to supply essential commodities to the cardholders without any order of suspension or termination, thereupon a show cause notice, dated 24.01.2020 was issued to the petitioner making certain allegations regarding violation of Control Order, 2018 and the petitioner appeared before the concerned officer and submitted written explanation as admitted by the respondents in Para 7 of the Counter Affidavit, which is extracted in the earlier paras, but passed an order after considering the explanation as it was not convincing, by canceling the temporary authorization of the petitioner for FP Shop No. 0119099 of Kistappapeta Village, Srikakulam Mandal and District. 9. The contention of the petitioner is in three fold. The first contention is that no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner and no enquiry was conducted, and it is in violation of principle laid down in Smt.Godasu Thirupalamma, vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, 2015 (3) ALD 104 . 10. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on two judgments in K.Nirmala’s case (referred (2) supra) and in Thyrumala Setty Phanindra’s case (referred (3) supra). 11. The judgment in Smt.Godasu Thirupalamma’s case (referred (4) supra) is almost identical to the facts of the present case, there also an opportunity was afforded to the petitioner before passing order to appear personally and submit explanation. Accordingly, explanation was submitted, but on receipt of explanation, no personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner. Therefore, there is no enquiry in the eye of law and thereby the respondent authorities violated the procedure prescribed for conducting enquiry. Similar to the question in this case. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed on reliance on another judgment of Single Judge of this Court in B.Manjula v. District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool and others, 2015(4) ALT 572 . Similar to the question in this case. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed on reliance on another judgment of Single Judge of this Court in B.Manjula v. District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool and others, 2015(4) ALT 572 . In view of the law declared in above judgments, the respondents herein did not afford any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner to adduce evidence, but based on the explanation, show cause notice and other material concluded that the explanation is not convincing and thereby passed the order impugned in this Writ Petition. 13. If the principles laid down in the above judgments are applied to the present facts of case, the order of cancellation of temporary authorization of petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and on this ground, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 14. The second contention of the petitioner before this Court is that the impugned order passed by the respondent authorities is bereft of any reason and on this ground the impugned order is liable to be dismissed. 15. A bare look at the order impugned in this Writ Petition, it is clear that the temporary authorization of the petitioner was cancelled and one of the grounds urged before this Court is that the impugned order is without any reason and contrary to the law declared by this Court. A copy of the impugned order is placed on record by the learned Assistant Government for Civil Supplies and a bare look at the impugned order it is clear that the respondents did not conduct any enquiry and no reason was assigned for not accepting the explanation submitted by the petitioner, but the following finding is recorded:- “Based on explanation, placed on records and documents available that the FP Shop dealer Smt.Gondu Chinnammadu, doing duties as FP Shop dealer through her SHG group was not at all satisfactory. In the circumstances, it is proved that Smt.Gondu Chinnammadu, Member, Ram Sudheer SHG, temporary in-charge FP Shop dealer, FP Shop No.0119009 of Kistappeta Village, Srikakulam Mandal in Srikakulam District committed irregularities and contravened the provisions under Clause 10(1), 10(c ), 10(d), 12(a), 12(g) of APTDS Control Order, 2018 read with E.C. Act, 1955 and violation of guidelines for F.P. Shop dealers as per G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 01.08.2018 of CA & FACS (CS-II) Dept., A.P., Vijayawada. Therefore, I under the power vested with me U/s Cl.8(4) of AS PDS (Control) Order, 2018, hereby cancel the SHG group orders issued to Sri Sudheer SHG represented by Smt.Gondu Chinnammadu, Member, Ram Sudheer SHG, temporary in-charge FP Shop dealer, FP Shop No.0119009 of Kistappeta Village, Srikakulam Mandal, Srikakulam District.” 16. Thus, the finding recorded by the respondents that the explanation submitted by the petitioner is not at all satisfactory, but no reason was assigned for not accepting the explanation except concluding that it was not at all satisfactory. 17. Similarly, in K.Nirmala’s case (referred (2) above) the learned Single Judge of this Court held as follows:- “the order does not contain any reasons whatsoever for rejecting the stay application and secondly, the allegations on which the petitioner’s authorization was suspended are too trivial. This Court has time and again held that an order of suspension of fair price shop authorization being punitive in nature cannot be resorted to on trivial and flimsy grounds and that unless the appointing authority or the disciplinary authority has the reason to believe that the fair price shop dealer has been indulging in serious irregularities and that his further continuance pending enquiry as a dealer will cause serious prejudice to the public interest, suspension cannot be resorted to. An order of suspension of fair price shop authorization being punitive in nature cannot be resorted to on trivial and flimsy grounds and that unless the appointing authority or the disciplinary authority has the reason to believe that the fair price shop dealer has been indulging in serious irregularities and that his further continuance pending enquiry as a dealer will cause serious prejudice to the public interest, suspension cannot be resorted to. The respondents are directed to continue the petitioner as the fair price shop dealer till conclusion of the enquiry and passing of final orders by respondent in W.P.No.34264 to 2012 filed by the petitioner for interim relief shall stand disposed of as infructuous.” 18. Same is reiterated in another judgment in Thyrumala Setty’s case (referred (3) above) wherein it is held as follows:- “Therefore, only when serious allegations of commissions and omissions in distribution of the essential commodities in the fair price shop are made and a prima facie case is established against the dealer, the power of suspension of authorization has to be exercised. Any order of suspension, even if the same is passed pending enquiry, results in serious adverse consequences to the fair price shop dealer. While exercising this power, the appointing authority needs to use a proper sense of proportion. The power of suspension cannot be exercised as a matter of course. The main purpose of keeping dealership under suspension pending enquiry is to prevent the dealer from tampering of the record. Therefore, only when serious allegations of commissions and omissions in distribution of the essential commodities in the fair price shop are made and a prima facie case is established against the dealer, the power of suspension of authorization has to be exercised. There may be certain allegations which may not warrant immediate suspension. The case on hand falls in this category where, no suspension is warranted as, it is a matter of verification with reference to evidence whether the petitioner has permitted a benami to run the fair price shop or not. Considering the fact that the petitioner’s fair price shop is run without any variations between the stock register and the ground stock and without there being any complaints, from any cardholders, of improper distribution of commodities and in the absence of any allegation that the petitioner or the person who is allegedly running the fair price shop is indulging in acts, such as diversion of the essential commodities into black market, the hasty action of respondent No.2 in suspending the petitioner’s authorization cannot be sustained.” 19. Even otherwise in one of the judgments of this Court in W.P.No.19266 of 2019, dated 02.12.2019 an identical question was considered by this Court and held in Para 7 of the judgment as follows:- “7. 2nd respondent is a quasi judicial authority and required to adjudicate the disputes under Control Order, 2018. 2nd respondent being a quasi judicial authority has to pass a reasoned order, strictly adhering to the requirements under Control Order, 2018. Time and again the Courts held that though the administrative authorities exercising quasi judicial powers, are bound to record its reasons. In exercise of power of judicial review, the Apex Court in Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, works contract and Leasing, Kota v. Shukla and brothers [ (2010) 4 SCC 785 ] had an occasion to deal with an unreasoned order and made certain observations. In exercise of power of judicial review, the Apex Court in Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, works contract and Leasing, Kota v. Shukla and brothers [ (2010) 4 SCC 785 ] had an occasion to deal with an unreasoned order and made certain observations. In exercise of power of judicial review, the concept of reasoned orders/actions has been enforced equally by foreign courts as by the courts in India. The administrative authority and tribunals are obliged to give reasons, absence whereof could render the order liable to judicial chastise. Thus, it will not be far from absolute principle of law that the Courts should record reasons for its conclusions to enable the appellate or higher courts to exercise their jurisdiction appropriately and in accordance with law. It is the reasoning alone, that can enable a higher or an appellate court to appreciate the controversy in issue in its correct perspective and to hold whether the reasoning recorded by the Court whose order is impugned, is sustainable in law and whether it has adopted the correct legal approach. To subserve the purpose of justice delivery system, therefore, it is essential that the Courts should record reasons for its conclusions, whether disposing of the case at admission stage or after regular hearing. The Apex Court also referred various judgments in Siemens Engineering and Manufacturing Co., of India Ltd. v. Union of India and another [ AIR 1976 SC 1785 ], Gurdial Singh Fijji v. State of Punjab [ (1979) 2 SCC 368 ] and other judgments in Jawahar Lal Singh v. Naresh Singh and others [ (1987) 2 SCC 222 ], Chabungbambohal Singh v. Union of India [1995 (Suppl.) 2 SCC 83] and Hindustan Times Limited v. Union of India [ (1998) 2 SCC 242 ], concluded that the absence of reasoning as to the mandatory requirement of provision which conferred jurisdiction on the quasi judicial authority or a Court or administrative authority is mandatory. In the absence of reasons, the Court while exercising power of judicial review under Article 226 of Constitution of India can set aside the order impugned in the writ petition.” 20. Applying the principle laid down in the above judgments to 21. In view of the findings on first two contentions, there is no the present case, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Applying the principle laid down in the above judgments to 21. In view of the findings on first two contentions, there is no the present case, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. necessity to record any finding on the third contention and consequently no finding is recorded based on the third contention as this Court already concluded that the order passed by the respondents is contrary to the principles laid down in the above judgments and that the order is bereft of any reasons though the respondents are quasi judicial authority and required to adjudicate the dispute under Control Order, 2018 for passing such order of cancellation of authorization either as permanent or temporary dealer. Therefore, I find it is a fit case to set aside the order impugned in this Writ Petition. 22. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent in Rc.No.251/2019/S4, dated 24.02.2020, leaving it open to the respondents to take appropriate action if the petitioner violated any other provisions. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications, if any pending shall stand closed.