Statutory appellate authorities must provide reasoned orders for their decisions; failure to do so renders the orders unsustainable.

1. The petitioner challenges Ext.P10 order of the 2nd respondent - Commissioner of Civil Supplies and Ext.P14 order passed by the 1st respondent - State of Kerala.

2. The petitioner was the authorized licensee of ARD No.150 of Thrissur Taluk. The District Supply Officer, on 11.07.2008, detected some irregularities in the vicinity of the retail outlet of the petitioner. It was found that 5 sacks of rice were being transported from the shop of the petitioner in an autorickshaw. The autorickshaw was intercepted.

3. On 10.12.2008, Ext.P1 charge memo was served on the petitioner. In Ext.P1, it was alleged that the articles were seized outside the shop room and the shop was not permitted to be opened. The petitioner submitted Ext.P2 reply dated 20.12.2008, to the 4th respondent - District Supply Officer. It is the case of the petitioner that the charges framed against him were nothing but arising out of vendetta. The petitioner filed Ext.P3 complaint dated 11.07.2008 to the 3rd respondent - District Collector pointing out true facts. The autorickshaw Driver also made a complaint to the District Collector stating that it is a bogus case.

4. The District Collector issued Ext.P7 hearing notice to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted argument notes. Without considering the arguments of the petitioner, the 3rd respondent - District Collector passed Ext.P15 order canceling the ARD licence of the petitioner in respect of ARD No.150, contends the petitioner.

5. Against Ext.P15 order of the District Collector, the petitioner filed appeal before the 2nd respondent - Commissioner of Civil Supplies. The Commissioner rejected the appeal as per Ext.P10. Aggrieved by Ext.P10 appellate order, the petitioner filed a revision before the 1st respondent. The revision filed by the petitioner was also rejected as per Ext.P11 of the 1st respondent.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is nothing to connect the petitioner with the alleged seizure of rice sacks. The seizure was not from the premises of the petitioner. The appellate and revisional authorities have not assigned any reasons in support of their respective orders.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that there are various factors which were enumerated by the petitioner which were not taken into consideration by the respondents. A statutory authority is expected to follow the procedure contemplated in law and in the case on hand, it was not done. As the fundamental right and the statutory right of the petitioner is infringed, this Court should interfere in the matter and set aside Exts.P10 and P14, contended the learned counsel for the petitioner.

8. The 2nd respondent filed a counter affidavit. The 2nd respondent stated that on 11.07.2008, an intimation was received that local people had assembled around ARD No.150 of the petitioner and detained an autorickshaw loaded with 5 sacks of raw rice meant for public distribution. The 5th respondent - Taluk Supply Officer immediately rushed to the area. He found that the bags were loaded in an autorickshaw driven by one Subramanian.

9. The 5th respondent thereupon required the petitioner to open his shop for verification. The petitioner refused to open the shop. The 5th respondent thereupon called police and vigilance officers and broke open the lock of the shop. In the inspection, it was found that proper records were not maintained in the shop. In a room adjacent to the shop, substantial quantities of raw rice, boiled rice and wheat were unauthorisedly stored. The owner