Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 214 (KER)

K. K. Rajesh v. The Director Of Civil Supplies

2025-02-07

P.M.MANOJ

body2025
JUDGMENT : The writ petition is preferred challenging Ext.P12 order issued by the District Supply Officer. The issue involved in this case pertains to the seizure of ration articles from a grocery shop and registration of a police case as Crime No.774 of 2012 under Section 3 (2)(c) and Section 7 (1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act and Clause 5(a) of the Kerala Rationing Order , 1996. Thereby it was found that nine authorised retail distributors in Thalappally Taluk had diverted their stock of ration sugar for sale in open market and those licensees were arrayed as accused in Crime No.774 of 2012 of Erumapetty Police Station. 2. The petitioner approached this Court by preferring this writ petition stating that he is a beneficiary of the Public Distribution System and he along with other people in the locality had submitted various complaints to the authorities concerned about the diversion of ration articles for sale in the black market. In pursuance of such complaints, a raid has been conducted by the police and seizure has been effected. It is also complained that on knowing the seizure from the open market, the licensed authorised retail shops were closed and those licensees absconded. It is also stated that the then Taluk Supply Officer and the Rationing Inspector were also arrayed as accused in Crime No.774 of 2012. Subsequently, those authorised retail distributors involved in the alleged misappropriation of ration articles were suspended pending enquiry. 3. In these circumstances, the petitioner approached the appropriate authority, requesting not to renew the licence of the licensees involved in these offences. On the basis of such complaint, the 1 st respondent had issued a communication dated 27.05.2014 and taking his complaint into consideration, he was informed that final orders against ARDs concerned will be issued only after finalisation of the police case. 4. Thereafter the persons involved in the offence approached this Court by preferring WP(C) No.10060 of 2016 for revocation of the suspension of the licence. By judgment dated 16.03.2016, the writ petition was disposed of directing the District Supply Officer to take decision on the application preferred by the petitioners within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment. By judgment dated 16.03.2016, the writ petition was disposed of directing the District Supply Officer to take decision on the application preferred by the petitioners within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment. Thereafter, the petitioner again approached the District Supply Officer as per Ext.P7 whereby he appealed to the authority that there is no situation warranting revocation of the suspension of ARDs. Already there was a direction to conduct a hearing as per judgment dated 16.03.2016 in WP(C) No.10060 of 2016 preferred by the respondents. In such circumstances, the petitioner sought for an opportunity to be heard, being a Consumer of ration articles and he also preferred WP(C) No. 15392 of 2016. 5. By interim order dated 22.04.2016, this Court directed the 3 rd respondent, i.e., the District Supply Officer to consider and pass orders on the representation preferred by the petitioner, which is marked in this writ petition as Ext.P7 while hearing the matter pursuant to Ext.P5 judgment. Accordingly Ext.P9 notice was issued to the petitioner. He had submitted his version as per Ext.P10 dated 07.07.2016. In compliance with the directions in Exts.P5 and P8, the District Supply Officer, the 1 st respondent herein, heard the parties on 11.07.2016. 6. Upon hearing, the counsel for the petitioner put forward that the charge memo issued by the District Supply Officer is having some defects. Then sought for a correction with respect to six issues raised before the District Supply Officer. He also appealed to the authority that there is no circumstance that warrants revocation of suspension and sought the rejection of the applications submitted by the licensees on 22.02.2016. 7. During the hearing, it was also raised before the authority that the denial of an opportunity to be heard together with the licensees will deny the right of the petitioner for a fair trial. It is also contended that the District Supply Officer was not authorised to revoke the licence prior to the completion of the criminal proceedings, which is pending before the appropriate forum. It is further stated that the petitioner was already assured by the District Supply Officer that any steps for the revocation of the suspension of licence by the authority would be taken only after the completion of the pending criminal proceedings. It is further stated that the petitioner was already assured by the District Supply Officer that any steps for the revocation of the suspension of licence by the authority would be taken only after the completion of the pending criminal proceedings. The police filed the final report stating that all the nine ARDs were found guilty with respect to the alleged offences. The explanation offered by the ARDs that the ARD shops were closed only because they were frightened of the interference of the police. That itself amounts to an admission of their mistakes. Under these backgrounds, the petitioner sought the rejection of the application submitted by the ration dealers for revocation of the suspension. 8. The issues were heard by the District Supply Officer. The sole allegation raised with respect to Ext.P12 is that the petitioner was heard on 11.07.2016 at 3.00 p.m. However, the accused ration dealers were heard on some other day and thereby the petitioner was not in a position to hear the arguments raised by the accused ration dealers and he did not get an opportunity to counter the contentions raised by those ration dealers. This is against the principles of fair trial and principles of natural justice. On this background the petitioner impugned Ext.P12 order issued by the District Supply Officer. 9. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader submitted that in fact the petitioner has no role in the matter between the District Supply Officer and the ration dealers. The petitioner has not established his locus standi to challenge Ext.P12 order, since it amounts to disciplinary proceedings for violation of the licence conditions. In fact, the District Supply Officer is the authority to issue licence to the ARDs as per the Essential Commodities Act , 1955 as well as the Kerala Rationing Order , 1966. On the authority granted as per the Rationing Order, the District Supply Officer issued licences to the ARDs. Once the licensing condition is violated, it is the authority of the District Supply Officer to take disciplinary action against the licensees. When the police filed a criminal case against all the nine ARDs of Thalappally Taluk, as part of taking disciplinary action as a preliminary step, the licences of the nine ARDs allegedly involved in the offences were suspended. 10. When the police filed a criminal case against all the nine ARDs of Thalappally Taluk, as part of taking disciplinary action as a preliminary step, the licences of the nine ARDs allegedly involved in the offences were suspended. 10. Thereafter, such licensees approached the District Supply Officer for revocation of the suspension of their licences during the pendency of the criminal proceedings. It is also contended by the learned Government Pleader that such application can be considered by the District Supply Officer as provided under Clause 45(9) of the Kerala Rationing Order , which reads thus: “Notwithstanding the provisions contained in sub clause (8) the District Collector or any officer of the Civil Supplies Department not below the rank of a District Supply Officer may after giving the authorized retail distributor an opportunity of stating his case and for reasons to be recorded in writing, amend, vary, suspend or cancel his appointment whenever the opinion of the District Collector or other officer, it is in the interest of the general public necessary or expedient so to do, and in every such case the authorised retail distributor shall surrender on demand to the District Collector or other officer the order of appointment for endorsement of cancellation as the case may be.” Clause 45(10) provides right to appeal against such order passed by the competent officer in clause 45(9). 11. Here, in the case on hand, the petitioner is a third person in the proceeding. He has no right to interfere with the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the District Supply Officer against the ARD licensees coming within its jurisdiction. 12. In support of his submission, the learned Government Pleader submitted a reported decision in Narayanan v. Narikkuni Service Cooperative Bank [2002 KHC 414]. The issue involved in this case is with respect to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against an employee of the said Narikkuni Service Cooperative Bank. A third person approached under Rule 198 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules to enhance the punishment by preferring an appeal. This Court held that in the matter of disciplinary proceedings initiated against an employee of the first respondent society, third parties have no role to play and they have no say in the matter. It is for the statutory authorities to take appropriate action as warranted in the circumstances and as permitted under the Statute. 13. This Court held that in the matter of disciplinary proceedings initiated against an employee of the first respondent society, third parties have no role to play and they have no say in the matter. It is for the statutory authorities to take appropriate action as warranted in the circumstances and as permitted under the Statute. 13. The learned Government Pleader drawing a comparison with the provisions of the Kerala Rationing Order , submitted that the District Supply Officer is the licensing officer and who takes disciplinary action against the licensee as per the conditions stipulated under the Kerala Rationing Order , in which a third person cannot interfere with. However, in the light of the directions given by this Court, he was given an opportunity of being heard. His counsel was heard and Ext.P12 order was passed, after a detailed narration of facts and deliberation of the issues involved in the case. Under such circumstances no interference is warranted, contended by the learned Government Pleader. 14. The learned counsel appearing for the party respondents submitted that the petitioner has not proved his bona fides in interfering with the revocation of suspension of the licences. Since the case is pending at the trial stage before the appropriate Court having jurisdiction, which is yet to be completed, there is no point in seeking for non revocation of the suspension of licences because it is part of the Public Distribution System, which cannot be deterred at any cost. 15. I have heard Sri.Philip T.Varghese, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Binoy Davis, the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri.P.Vijayabhanu, the learned Senior Counsel for respondents 4 to 11, instructed by Adv.Ajesh K.Sasi. 16. The primary contention raised by the petitioner is that he was denied a fair trial as he was not given an opportunity to be heard together with the accused persons. It is the case of the petitioner that being a public spirited person and a consumer of the ration articles, he has every right to interfere with the issue of granting revocation of suspension of licence to the alleged ARD shops. That is the circumstance in which the petitioner has approached the competent authorities alleging misappropriation of ration articles. On the basis of such complaints, police conducted a search and found that the ration articles were misappropriated and initiated criminal proceedings against such violators. That is the circumstance in which the petitioner has approached the competent authorities alleging misappropriation of ration articles. On the basis of such complaints, police conducted a search and found that the ration articles were misappropriated and initiated criminal proceedings against such violators. Therefore, he has every right to approach the appropriate authority against the ration dealers. 17. In respect of departmental proceedings which are initiated or sought to be initiated by the concerned department against its employees, a person who is not even remotely connected with those proceedings cannot challenge any aspect of the departmental proceedings or action by filing a writ petition. Disciplinary action against an employee is taken by the department for various reasons, principally for “misconduct” on the part of the employee. This action is taken after a “domestic” enquiry in which the employee is provided an opportunity of hearing as required by the constitutional mandate. It is essentially a matter between the employer and the employee and a stranger cannot be said to have any interest in those proceedings. Public interest of general importance is not involved in disciplinary proceedings. In fact, if such petitions are entertained at the instance of persons who are not connected with those proceedings, it would amount to an abuse of the process of Court. 18. However, in the case on hand, drawing assimilation with the above proposition, it is a matter to be considered that the issuance and revocation of suspension of licences are matters purely within the realm of the District Supply Officer under the provisions of the Kerala Rationing Order , especially when Clause 45(9) of the Order provides power to the District Collector or the District Supply Officer or any officer of the Civil Supplies Department not below the Rank of District Supply Officer to initiate action against a retail distributor after affording an opportunity to state his case in the case of any amendment, variation, suspension or cancellation of his appointment. 19. In disciplinary proceedings, the requirement that both parties must be heard together (i.e., in each other’s presence) is not an absolute necessity. What is essential is adherence to the principles of natural justice, particularly, audi alteram partem (hear the other side). Each party should have an opportunity to present their case, but this does not necessarily mean that both must be heard simultaneously or in each other’s presence. 20. What is essential is adherence to the principles of natural justice, particularly, audi alteram partem (hear the other side). Each party should have an opportunity to present their case, but this does not necessarily mean that both must be heard simultaneously or in each other’s presence. 20. Here, in the case on hand, on finding that some irregularities have occurred from the part of the ration dealers as part of the enquiry, licences were suspended by the competent authority and criminal proceedings were also initiated against those erring licensees. That proceedings are pending before the competent Court. Since the supply of ration articles is a matter of high priority, the suspension of licences is revoked, for the time being, in order to ensure the supply of ration articles. But that was subject to the finalisation of the criminal proceedings. The District Supply Officer is competent to take such decisions. Here, the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to be heard, but that does not mean the petitioner can dictate how the final charge can be framed. The petitioner’s right to a hearing has already been ensured by hearing him on 11.07.2016. But the appeal of the petitioner that he must be heard together with the alleged ARD owners cannot be acceded to in the background of no supporting material. 21. I have perused the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma , [ (1996) 3 SCC 364 ] , wherein it was held that violation of natural justice must result in actual prejudice to warrant interference. Mere procedural irregularities do not vitiate the proceedings unless they cause substantial harm. In the case of violation of a procedural provision, the position is this: procedural provisions are generally meant for affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity to the delinquent officer/employee. Violation of any and every procedural provision cannot be said to automatically vitiate the enquiry held or order passed. Except cases falling under – “no notice”, “no opportunity” and “no hearing” categories, the complaint of violation of procedural provision should be examined from the point of view of prejudice, viz., whether such violation has prejudiced the delinquent officer/employee in defending himself properly and effectively. If it is found that he has been so prejudiced, appropriate orders have to be made to repair and remedy the prejudice including setting aside the enquiry and/or the order of punishment. If it is found that he has been so prejudiced, appropriate orders have to be made to repair and remedy the prejudice including setting aside the enquiry and/or the order of punishment. If no prejudice is established to have resulted therefrom, it is obvious, no interference is called for. 22. In respectful agreement with the dictum laid down in Narayanan’s case cited (supra) drawing assimilation to the issue in hand that the issuance and cancellation of licences are matters completely within the prerogative of the District Supply Officer and that amounts to a disciplinary action itself. Thereby the petitioner has no right to interfere with or seek for a direction of personal hearing along with other persons, which is not at all a statutory requirement. 23. Going by the interim order dated 22.04.2016, the only direction was to consider the representation preferred by the petitioner, if the matter is not yet decided. Going by the impugned order, it appears that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to be heard and the objections raised by the petitioner were considered in detail. Under such circumstances, I don’t find any ground to interfere with Ext.P12 order. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.