Allowed

Golla Lokeswaramma v. The District Collector

Telangana HC8 Jul 2011WP/3266/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge allowed a writ petition alleging violation of natural justice. The Supreme Court set aside orders cancelling a fair price shop dealer's authorisation where the enquiry report was not supplied, and the dealer was denied the chance to cross-examine complaining card holders.

What did the court decide?

Setting aside the orders of the primary, appellate and revisionary authorities cancelling the petitioner's fair price shop authorisation.

Golla Lokeswaramma Vs The District Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.3266 of 2007

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner, the fair price shop dealer of Alaganoor Village, Midthur Mandal, Kurnool District, assails the cancellation of her authorisation by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool District, under proceedings dated 16.09.2006 which stood confirmed in appeal and thereafter in revision by the Joint Collector, Kurnool and the District Collector, Kurnool under proceedings dated 26.10.2006 and 11.01.2007 respectively.

¶5

2. Though no interim orders were granted in this writ petition, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool District, under communication dated 27.06.2011 informed the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies that no permanent arrangement had been made for filling up the vacancy created by the cancellation of the petitioner’s authorisation.

¶6

3. The matter is amenable to resolution on a short ground.

¶7

4. It is the case of the petitioner that the report dated 08.08.2006 of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Midthur Mandal, which formed the basis for the disciplinary action initiated against her, was not supplied to her at any point of time. She further stated that she did not have an opportunity to crossexamine the 46 card holders who allegedly complained against her.

¶8

5. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool, stated in her counter that the petitioner had not requested for supply of the enquiry report and therefore, she could not be permitted to raise this aspect before this Court.

¶9

6. This issue is however squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in N. Kalyani Vs District Collector, Prakasa m^[1] wherein the Division Bench affirmed the ratio laid down by this Court in K. Radha Krishna Naidu Vs. Director of Civil Supplies^[2] and held that if the primary report on the basis of which charges were framed against the dealer

¶10

was not furnished to him, it would vitiate the proceedings due to violation of the principles of natural justice and absence of sufficient opportunity for the dealer to defend the case effectively. The Bench further held that reasonable opportunity should be real and effective and simply because the dealer submitted an explanation, it would not fulfil this requirement.

¶11

7. In the light of the afore stated legal position, the failure on the part of the authorities in making available a copy of the report dated 08.08.2006 submitted by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Midthur and not allowing her an opportunity to cross-examine the card holders who had complained against her would vitiate the proceedings owing to a blatant violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶12

8. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed setting aside the orders passed by the primary, appellate and revisionary authorities cancelling the petitioner’s fair price shop authorisation. No order as to costs.

¶13

___________________________ JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶14

08.07.2011 VJL

¶15

[1] 2006(5) ALD 796 (DB)

¶16

[2] 1996(1) ALD 473

Golla Lokeswaramma v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Golla Lokeswaramma v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. M.Mahalakshmi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mohammad Sadiq Vs The Commissioenr

Islamia Education Society Vs S.G. Haqani

Vendra Ganesh Mrutyunjaya Venkata Ramakrishnarao Vs The Joint Collector

Darsi Gram Panchayat Vs The Government of a.P., Rep. by its Principal

Arji Shankar rao, Vs Divisional Engineer-Operation, ZoneI