Muppidi Anandarao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

MUPPIDI ANANDARAO,, S/O. YESUBU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: F.P. SHOP DEALER, SHOP NO.19, MAHENDRAVADA VILLAGE, ANAPARTHI MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES (CS.I) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, HYDERABAD,

¶13

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶14

THE JOINT COLLECTOR CS, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, KAKINADA.

¶15

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, RAMACHANDRAPURAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the proceedings of the 2nd Respondent in Ref.V9/CS/162/2014, dated 30-09-2016 as illegal and violation of Clause 5(5) of the A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 and

2

VS,J

W.P.NO.36334 OF 2016

consequently set aside the same, and further direct the Respondent No.2 to restore the authorization of Fair Price Shop No.19 to the petitioner, and pass

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP 44751 OF 2016

¶23

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the proceedings in Ref.V9/CS/162/2014, dated 30-09-2016 of the 2nd respondent and direct the respondent No.2 to permit the petitioner to function as the Fair Price Shop Dealer of Shop No.19, Mahendravada Village, Anaparthi Mandal, East Godavari District, pending disposal of the main Writ petition, and pass

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶25

1.R YELLA REDDY

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶27

1.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES (AP)

¶28

The Court made the following:

¶29

3

¶30

VS,J W.P.NO.36334 OF 2016

¶31

ORDER:-

¶32

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as a fair price shop dealer of Shop No.19, Mahendravada Village, Anaparthi Mandal, East Godavari District by the 4^th respondent in the year 2009. Since the date of appointment, the petitioner has been distributing essential commodities to the cardholders without there being any complaint either from the cardholders or the concerned authorities.

¶33

While the matter being so, the 4^th respondent, basing on the report submitted by the inspecting officials dated 28.10.2013, issued a show cause notice on 05.11.2013, framing seven charges against the petitioner and calling for an explanation. In pursuance of which, the petitioner submitted his explanation and appeared in person on 12.11.2013, and requested the concerned officers to drop further action and to permit him to continue as the fair price shop dealer by duly denying the irregularities found by the enquiry committee. But in spite of the same, the 4^th respondent even without conducting any enquiry, basing on the report submitted by the inspecting officials dated 28.10.2013, cancelled the petitioner’s authorization vide proceedings dated 14.11.2013 which was further confirmed in an appeal preferred by the petitioner by orders dated 31.01.2014 and further in a revision by the 2^nd respondent vide orders dated 30.09.2016.

¶34

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.

¶35

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, even without issuing a show cause notice based on the report of the inspecting officials dated 28.10.2013, his authorization was cancelled even without conducting any enquiry. Even the impugned proceedings of the 4^th respondent would disclose that the petitioner submitted his explanation on 12.11.2013 and appeared in person and requested the officers to drop further action denying the irregularities mentioned in the show cause notice. But in spite of the same,

¶36

4

¶37

VS,J

¶38

W.P.NO.36334 OF 2016 without there being any enquiry, basing on the report submitted by the inspecting officials dated 28.10.2013, the 4^th respondent has suspended the petitioner’s authorization. Though the petitioner has preferred an appeal against the said orders before the 3^rd respondent, alleging that without there being any enquiry the petitioner’s authorization was suspended, the 3^rd respondent even without considering the grounds raised has confirmed the orders passed by the 4^th respondent. Further the orders has been confirmed by the 2^nd respondent in the revision preferred by the petitioner, even without answering on the point as to whether any enquiry has been conducted on the allegations raised against the petitioner before cancelling the petitioner’s authorization. As per the orders of the 4^th respondent dated 14.11.2013, it is clear that admittedly no enquiry has been conducted, however, the said proceedings have been passed basing on the report of the inspecting officials on the date of inspection dated 28.10.2013 alone which is in violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶39

The Hon’ble High Court of Manipur at Imphal in the Case of Ashok

¶40

Kumar Rana Vs. The Union of India and Ors.¹ held as follows:

¶41

“ The fundamental rules of natural justice as have become firmly embedded in modern jurisprudence, may be broadly categorized under the heads of:

¶42

“(1) Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa, i.e. no one shall be a judge in his own case, or “Doctrine of Bias”.

¶43

(2) Audi alteram partem i.e. Right of hearing.

¶44

(3) Reasoned decision/Speaking order.”

¶45

In present case, we are concerned primarily with the second principle, viz., audi alteram partem.

¶46

“Audi alteram partem” is one of the most important aspects of the principles of natural justice which literally means “to hear the other side”. This means the necessity to provide a fair hearing i.e. affording opportunity to the person concerned to explain his position before such person is subjected to any adverse action so that he may be able to explain the facts and circumstances and convince the authorities concerned that such a contemplated or proposed adverse action is not called for. This principle of audi alteram partem requires that notice must be given to the person before any adverse action is taken and such notice cannot be vague and ambiguous to the proposed action to be taken so as to apprise the authorities

¶47

1 MANU/MN/0066/2016

¶48

5

¶49

VS,J W.P.NO.36334 OF 2016 determinatively the cases he has to meet. In other words, the person concerned must be informed of the charges and allegations clearly against him so that he may be able to fully meet these allegations and defend himself.”

¶50

In view of the same, this Court is of the opinion to set-aside the orders dated 14.11.2013 of the 4^th respondent, dated 31.01.2014 of the 3^rd respondent and 30.09.2016 of the 2^nd respondent and the matter is remanded back to the 4^th respondent for a fresh enquiry after giving a fresh notice to the petitioner and according an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The said process shall be completed within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶51