Disposed

K Vijayashanthi v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC25 Feb 2024WP/4718/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A fair price shop dealer challenged cancellation of her authorization for alleged non-supply of PDS rice, passed without enquiry or hearing. Holding it violated natural justice, the Court set aside the order, remanded for fresh enquiry within four weeks and restored her dealership pending fresh decision.

What the court decided

AI extract

K Vijayashanthi Vs the State of Ap — Public Procurement and Tenders | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA APHC010085842024 PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

[3329]

¶3

M ONDAY ,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY O F FEBRUARY T WO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOU R PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 4718 OF 2024

¶6

Between: K VIJAYASHANTHI ...PETITIONER(S)

¶7

AND

¶8

THE STATE OF AP AND O THERS ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶9

Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI. M M M SRINIVASA RAO

¶10

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES (AP)

¶11

The Court made the following:

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

This writ petition is fi l ed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the f ollowing relief:-

¶14

“to iss u e a writ or direction preferably writ of ma n damus declaring the order issued by the 3^rd respondent vide Rekah No.532/20 2 3/SA-B dt.22.1.2024 cancelling the author i zation of the petitioner in respect of F.P.Sh o p No.0202001, Bibbidi Village, Gummadil a kshmipuram Mandal, Parvathipuram Manyam, Dist., without following t he procedure as contemplated under AP S tate Targeted Public Distribution System ( C ontrol) Order, 2018 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural ju s tice and consequently set aside the said order dt.22.1.2024 and further direct the respondents to continue the

¶15

petitioner as FP Shop dealer as usual and pass and such other order or orders…”

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. Perused the material available on record.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein is a permanent fair price shop dealer appointed in respect of the shop No.0202001, Bibbidi Village, Gummadilakshmipuram Mandal, Parvathipuram Manyam District and had obtained authorization issued under Clause 8 of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018. The said authorization is valid upto 31.03.2020 and thereafter the petitioner paid renewal chalans from time to time for renewal of her authorization.

¶18

While things stood thus, the Sarpach of the village made a compliant before the 3^rd respondent alleging that the petitioner has not issued PMGKY free rice to 502 card holders for the month of December, 2022 and not issued PDS rice to the cardholders for the month of May and June, 2023. Basing on the said complaint the 3^rd respondent herein issued a show cause notice dated 03.11.2023 calling for explanation regarding the alleged allegations. In response to the same, the petitioner herein submitted her explanation on 11.12.2023 stating the subject PDS

¶19

rice was delivered to the MDU operator for distribution. Without considering the said explanation, the 3^rd respondent issued directly issued impugned order dated 22.01.2024 cancelling the authorization of the petitioner herein.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the said impugned order was passed without application of mind. He further submits that no reasons were assigned while passing the order of cancellation being a quasi judicial authority, which is also contrary to the ratio laid down by this Court.

¶21

Learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies fairly conceded that, impugned proceedings appears to have been passed, without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and sought to remand the matter for fresh adjudication, in view of non-observation of principles of natural justice.

¶22

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and on perusal of the material placed on record, it appears that the impugned proceedings are issued by the respondents without observing the principles of natural justice and without following due procedure as contemplated under law. It is a settled principle of law that a quasi judicial authority should adhere to the principle of affording reasonable opportunity

¶23

to the parties before passing any orders. The said principle is enunciated by this Court as extracted under.

¶24

This Court in B. Manjula vs. District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool and others¹ , observed as extracted

¶25

hereunder:

¶26

“9. This Court is conscious of the fact that the law discussed above was laid down by the Courts in the context of disciplinary proceedings against Government servants and it may not be possible to adhere to the same rigors of procedure in an enquiry against a fair price shop dealer. However, this Court is of the considered opinion that since an order of cancellation of fair price shop visits the dealer with adverse consequences, the appointing authority must adhere to the fundamental ingredients of an enquiry. The enquiry need not be too elaborate as in the case of a disciplinary proceeding against a Government servant, but it shall follow the basic requirement of an enquiry which in my view must be as described infra.

¶27

10. An ‘enquiry’ pre-supposes an opportunity of personal hearing to the dealer to explain his/her case based on the records such as sales and stock registers. If need be, such enquiry must also include recording the sworn statement of the dealer and witnesses, if any, from his/her side. In cases where either card holders or other persons sent any complaint, they must also be examined in

¶28

1 2015(4) ALT 572

¶29

the presence of the dealer or his/her lawyer and the dealer shall be given an opportunity of crossexamining such persons. The licencing /disciplinary authority shall also supply to the dealer all the reports on which he is likely to place reliance to the detriment of the dealer. Unless the dealer has no explanation at all to offer, the licensing/disciplinary authority is bound to hold a detailed enquiry.

¶30

11. The experience of this Court reveals that the appointing authorities of fair price shop dealers are dispensing with the requirement of making personal enquiry by summoning the dealers. They are merely relying upon the reports sent by their subordinates i.e., Deputy Tahsildars and Tahsildars, behind the back of the dealers and resting their decisions solely upon those reports. This procedure is anathema to the concept of enquiry which otherwise means affording the dealer an opportunity of a fair hearing.”

¶31

It is settled law that, before passing any final order, which affects the interest of any party, the authorities shall have to record reasons by conducting proper enquiry. Admittedly, in this case, proper enquiry was not conducted and no reasons were recorded in the impugned order, which is in violation of principles of natural justice.

¶32

In view of the same, as the respondents have not followed the due procedure, in the considered opinion of this Court, the

¶33

impugned proceedings are unsustainable under law and liable to be set-aside.

¶34

With the above observations, writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

¶35

i. The impugned proceedings in Reekah No.532/2023/SA-B, dated 22.01.2024 is set-aside and the case is remanded back to Respondent No.3 for conducting fresh enquiry after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and record reasons thereof. This entire exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks (04) from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶36

ii. The respondents are directed to restore the authorization of the petitioner till appropriate order/decision is taken by the respondents/authorities;

¶37

iii. The respondents are directed to continue the petitioner as Permanent Fair Price Shop Dealer respect of the shop No.0202001, Bibbidi Village, Gummadilakshmipuram Mandal, Parvathipuram Manyam District. Further, respondents concerned are hereby directed to supply essential commodities to the petitioner in order to supply the same to the card holders.

¶38