Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(AP) 15746
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
B S Bhanu Mathi, J
k rayalaiah – Appellant
Versus
state of ap – Respondent
WP 87/2018
Sri. V Sudhakar Reddy, GP for Civil Supplies (AP)
The court emphasized adherence to natural justice principles in administrative actions, ruling that failure to provide a fair opportunity and necessary documentation invalidates cancellation orders.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of Mandamus - Cancellation of fair price shop authorization - Petitioner challenged the cancellation of his dealership on grounds of violation of natural justice and lack of proper inquiry - The court found that the petitioner was not given a fair opportunity to defend himself, and the orders were passed without proper consideration of his explanations. (Paras 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 16)
(B) Principles of Natural Justice - The court emphasized that the principles of natural justice must be adhered to in administrative proceedings, including the necessity of providing a copy of the report relied upon for any adverse action. (Paras 8, 10)
(C) Eligibility for Fair Price Shop Dealers - The court noted that the guidelines for fair price shop dealers require an undertaking to relinquish the dealership if elected to public office, but this was not enforced in the petitioner’s case. (Paras 12, 14)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a fair price shop dealer for over 23 years, faced cancellation of his authorization after being elected as an MPTC member. The cancellation was based on alleged irregularities without proper inquiry or notice.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the cancellation of the petitioner’s dealership was unsustainable due to violations of natural justice and lack of proper inquiry.
Issues: The main issues included whether the petitioner was afforded a fair opportunity to defend against the charges and the validity of the cancellation of his dealership.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the failure to provide a copy of the report and to conduct a proper inquiry constituted a violation of natural justice, rendering the cancellation order invalid.
Result: Writ Petition allowed, setting aside the order of cancellation.
ORDER:
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking the following relief:
“…to issue an order, direction or writ, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order D. Dis (C1)110/2016, dated 27.11.2017 passed by the District Collector, Chittoor, the 2nd respondent herein, dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner by upholding the orders passed by the 3rd respondent Joint Collector in D.Dis (C1)/54/2016, dated 24.01.2017 and the order of the 4th respondent sub- Collector in D.Dis.No.K/2498/2014, dated 30.03.2016, wherein and whereunder he cancelled the authorization of the petitioner F.P shop No.17, Krishnapuram Village, Renigunta Mandal, Chittoor District, as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the law laid down by this Hon’ble Court and violative of principles of natural justice and also violative of Articles 14, 19 (1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner F.P shop and to pass such other order or orders in the interests of justice.”
2. Heard Sri V.Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents.
3. The facts, briefly stated, are as follows:
a. The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer of shop No.17, Krishnapuram village, Renigunta Mandal, Chittoor District, appointed on permanent basis. He has been distributing the essential commodities to the cardholders for more than 23 years without any complaint whatsoever. While so, he was elected as MPTC member for Krishnapuram territorial constituency of Renigunta Mandal in the year 2014. Thereafter, the 4th respondent/The Sub Collector, Tirupati, issued proceedings in Roc.No. K/2498/2014, dated 18.08.2014, directing the petitioner to resign as fair price shop dealer, within a period of ten (10) days.
b. Questioning the proceedings, dated 18.08.2014, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.25037 of 2014 before this Court and this Court, by order dated 28.08.2014, passed in W.P.M.P.No.31233 of 2014, suspended the proceedings of the 4th respondent. The said interim order is being extended from time to time and the petitioner has been continuing as fair price shop dealer during the pendency of the writ petition.
c. While things stood thus, on 10.08.2015, the Divisional Supply Officer, Tirupati, along with the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildars, Renigunta and Pichatur Mandals, inspected the shop of the petitioner and submitted a report to the 4th respondent pointing out certain irregularities in distribution of the essential commodities. On the basis of the report, the 4th respondent issued a show cause notice, dated 14.08.2015, framing six charges and directing the petitioner to submit explanation. The petitioner submitted explanation before the 4th respondent on 21.08.2015. Thereafter, the 4th respondent issued another show-cause notice, on the same day, framing seven more charges. The latter charges relate to the aspects of the petitioner being elected as MPTC member and discrepancy in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his explanation stating that in the school records, his name is recorded as ‘Rayalaiah’ whereas he is being generally called as Muddu Rayalu. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his explanation, dated 21.08.2015, and requested to drop the charges.
d. Surprisingly, without considering the explanation, the 4th respondent issued proceedings in Roc.No.K/2498/2014, dated 31.08.2015, placing the authorization of the fair price shop of the petitioner under suspension pending enquiry by holding that all the charges were proved.
e. Aggrieved by the order suspending his authorization, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Joint Collector, Chittoor. By order, dated 07.10.2015, in D Dis (C1), 397/2015, the Joint Collector disposed of the appeal, directing the 4th respondent to complet
