Point of Law: 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

ORDER:

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 FPSAP No.02/0220/46, dated 28.06.2020 issued by the 2nd respondent, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same in the interest of justice and pass such other order….”

2. The petitioner was appointed as the dealer for FP Shop No.94, VT Agraharam Area, B.C. Colony, 25th Ward, Vizianagaram Town by the 4th respondent in the year 2011. The Civil Supplies Revenue Inspector and Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar came from 5th respondent office, inspected petitioner’s shop and went away without informing anything to the petitioner. On enquiry, the petitioner was informed that the 5th respondent had registered a case against the petitioner under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, but no show cause notice was issued to her till date.

3. The 4th respondent appointed the 6th respondent as temporary dealer for the Shop No.94, Vizianagaram without issuing any notice to the petitioner. The petitioner’s dealership is not suspended by the authorities till date and no order are passed by the respondent authorities either suspending or removing the petitioner as a dealer till date. The petitioner submitted two representations on 06.08.2018 and 17.04.2019 to the respondents 2 to 5 to restore her dealership, but the respondents 2 to 5 did not pass any orders on the representations submitted by the petitioner. This Court in W.P.No.10970 of 2019 directed the 3rd respondent to dispose of the representations submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with law. In pursuance of the said orders, the 2nd respondent passed orders for restoration of her dealership to the Shop No.24 in RC.No.249/2019-G1.

4. The 6th respondent filed W.P.No.18412 of 2019 questioning the restoration orders and this Court disposed of the said Writ Petition giving liberty to the 6th respondent to challenge the restoration orders by filing appeal/revision before the concerned authority. The 6th respondent filed appeal before the 2nd respondent to set aside the restoration orders, dated 04.11.2019 issued by the 3rd respondent and the 2nd respondent allowed the appeal impugned in this Writ Petition. The main ground urged before this Court is that the order passed by the 2nd respondent in appeal is illegal and without jurisdiction and therefore issuance of such direction is contrary to law and requested to set aside the order passed by this Court, declaring the same as illegal and arbitrary.

5. Respondent No.2 filed counter affidavit admitting everything including passing of order impugned in this Writ Petition, exparte order passed by the District Collector under Control Order, 2018 and therefore this Court cannot interfere with the said order while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and requested to dismiss the same.

6. Whereas, the 5th respondent filed independent counter admitting about filing of various proceedings including filing of earlier Writ Petitions and direction issued by this Court in W.P.No.10970 of 2019 so also the Writ Petition No.18412 of 2019 directing the 6th respondent to file appeal before the 2nd respondent. Accordingly, an appeal was filed and the same was disposed of, thereby, there is no illegality and requested to dismiss the Writ Petition.

7. During hearing, Sri Ch.B.R.P. Sekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions urged in the main petition. The petitioner was appointed as permanent fair price shop dealer, but on account of alleged irregularities committed in distribution of the essential commodities in violation of the Control Order, 2018 the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, on the report of the Civil Supplies