The exclusion of the audi alteram partem rule in the suspension pending enquiry under clause 45(8) of the Kerala Rationing Order was justified to maintain the public distribution system and prevent further irregularities.

K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.

The first petitioner in each of these Original Petitions is the Association of Ration Retail Dealers, and other petitioners are authorised ration retail distributors. They have approached this court seeking a direction restraining the respondents from initiating any action against the petitioners or other retail dealers to suspend or cancel their authorisation solely on the reason that the off take by the card holders during the last week of May, 1997 was high. The petitioners in O.P. 10539 of 1997 belongs to Thodupuzha Taluk and in O.P. 10768/1997 belong to Peerumedu Taluk.

2. The petitioners submit that there was advanced announcement of increase in price of ration articles to be effective from 1.6.1997. Therefore, there was a high rate of off take during the last week of May, 1997 by the consumers. Therefore, the petitioners had to intend more goods than they had intended during the earlier weeks. Consequently, the week ending balance as on 31.5.1997 was comparatively less than the earlier weekends. Thus, taking it as an irregularity or malpractice, there was investigation with reference to the stock of all the ration retail dealers. The petitioners submit that they are not responsible for this small balance at the weekending 31.5.1997, because the consumers were aware of the price increase to be effective from 1.6.1997. So, all the card holders had purchased their ration quota during the said week. This resulted in the closing stock as on 31.5.1997 at a lesser rate than the week ending earlier than 31.5.1997. The petitioners submit that no action shall be taken on its basis.

3. A statement filed in O.P. 105 39/97 discloses that there was verification of the relevant records in the shops of the concerned A.R.Ds. and the stock register, issue register and counter foil bill books did not reflect as in the ration card kept by the consumers and that there were large scale irregularities. Therefore, steps were taken to suspend the licences of 12 ration retailers in Thodupuzha Taluk, and few of the petitioners were also suspended. The same was the case relating to Peerumedu Taluk also.

4. At this juncture, the contention of the petitioners is that the suspension cannot be ordered without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. The petitioners submit that the concerned supply officer is empowered to suspend the A.R.D. as per the clause 45(8) of the Kerala Rationing Order. If the Taluk supply Officer finds that the authorised ration retail distributor had contravened any of the provisions of the Order or any direction issued in terms of the said Order or on receipt of a report from subordinate officers or on his own inspection any shortage or excess in the quantity of the ration articles or any irregularity in the accounts is detected or detects non-compliance of the directions issued by the competent authority, he may "after giving the Authorised Retail Distributor an opportunity of stating his case and for reasons to be recorded in writing; "amend, vary, suspend or cancel his appointment". Thus, it is submitted that before placing an A.R.D. under suspension, an opportunity of being heard shall be rendered to him. It is submitted that though a suspension pending enquiry is also provided in clause 45(8), that shall also be after affording an opportunity as it is not expressly excluded. In this case, the suspension orders had been issued by the Taluk Supply Officer concerned pending enquiry. Even then, it is contended that an opportunity shall be rendered as there is no exclusion of the principles of natural justice, which is made mandatory in respect of the suspension in the first part of clause 45(8), when suspension pending enquiry is dealt with.

5. In support of these contentions, the petitioner had referred to few decisions. Relying on the decision in S.1. Kapoor v. Jagmohan & Ors. (1980 (4) SCC 379), the petitioners contend that "it is- not always a necessary inference that if oppo