The failure to follow procedural safeguards in verifying stock against registered records constitutes grounds for the reconsideration of administrative decisions.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P6 order of the Commissioner of Civil Supplies and for other consequential reliefs.

2. It is contended that the petitioner was an Authorized Retail Distributor (ARD) with respect to ARD 150 of Thrissur Taluk. Proceedings were initiated against the petitioner alleging that certain irregularities were detected in the vicinity of ARD 25 of Thrissur Taluk attached to ARD 150 of which petitioner was the licensee. The allegation was that 5 sacks of rice were being illegally transported from the shop of the petitioner in an autorickshaw. The autorickshaw was intercepted and the officials from Taluk Supply Office reached there and found in the presence of police 5 rice bags from the road side. It is further alleged that raw rice weighing 240 kgs. and 975 kgs. 48 kgs. of wheat in a sack having FCI mark, 96 kgs. of CMR rice and 144 kgs. of boiled rice were seized from a nearby room under the possession of the petitioner. It is further alleged that the officials proposed to conduct an inspection at 1.45 p.m.

and since the licensee refused to open the door of ARD, the same was broke open and inspection was conducted. Petitioner would submit that on 11.07.2008, the date of said inspection, he had submitted a complaint regarding the illegal and improper manner in which the inspection was conducted by the Taluk Supply Officer and stating that he had gone for the prayer and rituals in connection with the last rites of his father-in-law who passed away on 06.07.2008. There was no requirement at all to break open the shop and conduct the inspection since the petitioner was present in the shop upto 12.00 noon and after 4.00 p.m. on the very same day after attending the function in connection with the last rites of his father-in-law. It is further contended that the autorickshaw driver has also given a complaint before the District Collector stating that the party workers have threatening him. Ext.P1 charge memo was given to the petitioner by the District Supply Officer. Petitioner would submit that the said charge memo was issued for the reason that the rationing authorities had animosity towards him for a "sathyagraha" conducted by him in connection with certain improprieties and the whole incident was stage- managed by certain officials. The District Collector heard the petitioner and by Ext.P2 order, the licence of ARD 150 was cancelled. The Commissioner of Civil Supplies by an earlier order dated 11.07.2016 in the appeal confirmed the order of the District Collector cancelling the license of ARD 150 and the revision filed before the Government against the same also ended up in dismissal. Thereupon W.P.(C) No.26852 of 2017 was filed and the orders impugned were set aside with a consequential direction to the appellate authority to pass fresh orders. After remand the matter was again considered by the Commissioner of Civil Supplies and was rejected as per Ext.P6 order. It is aggrieved by the same that the present writ petition has been filed.

3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 4^th respondent, wherein it is contended that 240 kgs of ration rice was seized from near the premises of ARD 25/150 and the same was reported to the officials and at the time of inspection ARD 25/150 was found closed and further that various quantities of ration articles were seized from a nearby room of ARD 25/150 and based on the same ARD licence was cancelled. It is submitted that it is the responsibility of the licensee to keep correct account and stock as per the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966 and the officials had to open ARD 25/150 forcefully with the help of police officials and since the register and records were removed from there by the licensee,