C.P. Joy vs State Of Kerala And Ors

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

of the building gave a statement that the adjacent room in which ration articles were unauthorisedly kept was also leased out to the petitioner. The

misconduct of the petitioner was therefore obvious. It was under such circumstances that Ext.P15 order was passed canceling the licence granted to

the petitioner.

Exts.P10, P11 and P15 are strictly legal and are not liable to be interfered with, contended the learned Government Pleader.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

On 11.07.2008, rice was sought to be taken away from a room adjacent to ARD No.150 of the petitioner, on an autorickshaw. On receiving a

telephonic message, the District Supply Officer and party went to the spot. On enquiry, it was revealed that the petitioner instructed the autorickshaw

driver to bring 5 sacks of rice from a room adjacent to the ARD No.150 to the house of the petitioner. The District Collector, who enquired the case,

found that rice was sought to be taken from a room adjacent to the ration shop, by the petitioner with the intention of taking it to his house. The said

adjacent room was also in the possession of the petitioner and on inspection of the said room by the Taluk Supply Officer, unauthorised stock of rice

and wheat was found without any documents.

The petitioner was given a charge sheet. The following charges were made:-

The licensee refused to open the shop though he was present;

No records were found in the shop at the time of inspection;

Autorickshaw driver of KL-08L-7893 Sri. C.Subramanian gave a statement that he was required to bring to petitioner’s house 5 sacks rice

from a room adjacent to the ration shop and rice was loaded in his autorickshaw;

Apart from the 5 sacks of raw rice weighing 240 Kg. seized from the room adjacent to the ration shop, 975 Kg. of raw rice, 48 Kg. of wheat in a

sack having FCI Mark, 96 Kg. of CMR Rice and 144 Kg. of boiled rice were also seized. Shi. C.M. Babu, owner of the said room gave statement

that the said room was leased out to the petitioner.

The petitioner denied the said charges. The petitioner informed that he was away from the shop at the time, in order to attend post death rites of

his father-in-law and when he came to the shop, he found that the lock was broke open. The petitioner stated that all documents were locked inside

the drawer of a table. The petitioner stated that he has not taken the adjacent room on lease from Shi. CM. Babu. The petitioner is not acquainted

with the autorickshaw driver and the said driver has only a passenger auto.

The District Collector as per Ext.P15 found the petitioner guilty of the charges and confirmed the order passed by the Taluk Supply Officer

canceling the licence granted to the petitioner. The District Collector passed order permanently cancelling the ARD licence granted to the petitioner

and seized the confiscated materials taken from the room adjacent to the ration shop.

Aggrieved by the cancellation, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Civil Supplies. Though the appellate authority

elaborately recorded the statements made by the petitioner, the District Supply Officer and the Taluk Supply Officer, without making any appreciation

of the statements, the appellate authority as per Ext.P10 order dismissed the appeal simply stating that the arguments of the petitioner are not

sufficient to unsettle the order of the District Collector. A reading of Ext.P10 appellate order would show that the appellate authority himself has not

appreciated the evidence available and the arguments of the appellant and without giving any specific reason, rejected the appeal stating that the

arguments of the petitioner are not sufficient to unsettle the order of the District Collector. It is also to be noted that Ext.P10 appellate order was

passed not by a Civil Supplies Commissioner holding permanent charge of the post, but by an Officer who was only in charge of the Civil Supplies

Commissioner.

Though the petitioner filed revision before the 1st respondent against the appellate order, the revisional authority also rejected the revision petition

of the petitioner without appreciating the materials on record, holding that the petitioner has not produced evidence to establish his innocence. Ext.P14

revisional order also lacks reasons.

The appeal and the revision filed by the petitioner are under Clause 45 of the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966. It is a settled position of law that a

statutory appellate authority while considering a statutory appeal shall give reasons for his findings. Ext.P11 does not contain any reason nor any

discussion on the arguments raised by the petitioner. Though written elaborately recording the statements made by various parties in the proceedings,

the appellate order is a non-speaking order. The order in revision also is devoid of reasons.

Furthermore, the appellate order is seen passed by an officer holding temporary charge of the post of the Commissioner of Civil Supplies. A

person holding charge of a superior post can only discharge day-to-day administrative functions attached to the post. Such a person in charge, cannot

and is not competent to discharge statutory functions attached to the post. For this reason also, Ext.P11 is unsustainable.

In the circumstances, Exts.P11 and P14 appellate and revisional orders cannot be sustained. Exts.P11 and P14 orders are therefore quashed. The

matter is remitted back to the 2nd respondent to reconsider the appeal filed by the petitioner in accordance with law, granting an opportunity of hearing

to the petitioner. The 2nd respondent-appellate authority shall pass orders on the appeal preferred by the petitioner expeditiously.

The writ petition is disposed as above.