Point of Law: Public distribution system – Cancellation of licence - Cancellation of 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 :

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. 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 Commoditi