Katamreddi Vasundhara vs Joint Collector and Others

C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.—This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside proceedings No. D1.CS/2340/2007, dated 16.4.2008 of respondent No. 2 whereby he cancelled the Fair Price Shop Dealership of the petitioner in respect of C. Vengannapalli Village, Putlur Mandal, Anantapur District.

Heard Sri P. Kamalakar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.

Based on the report of the Tahsildar, Putlur, respondent No. 2 framed five charges against the petitioner, which read as under:

Charge 1: That the F.P. Shop Dealer has not distributing the Essential Commodities properly to the cardholders. Thereby the F.P. Shop Dealer violated Clause 22(vii) of A.P.S.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2001.

Charge 2: That the F.P. Shop Dealer is selling the stocks i.e., K. Oil 3 days only and rice 3 days only. Thereby the F.P. Shop Dealer has violated condition 4(i)(ii) of A.P.S.P.D.S. (Control) Order 2001.

Charge 3: That the F.P. Shop Dealer collecting the coupons without issuing stocks. Thereby the F.P. Shop Dealer has violated the condition 17 of A.P.S.P.D.S. (Control) Order 2001.

Charge 4: That the F.P. Shop Dealer is selling rice at Rs. 6.00 and K.Oil at Rs. 0.50 paise i.e., in excess instead of rates fixed by the Government. Thereby the F.P. Shop Dealer has violated the condition 22(iv) condition 7 of Authorisation.

Charge 5: That the F.P. Shop Dealer has not informed the buffer stocks since inception of his dealership. The dealer did not display the rates of ECs on the Stock Board. Thereby the F.P. Shop Dealer has violated the condition 22(v) of A.P.S.P.D.S. (Control) Order 2001.

Pending enquiry, the petitioner''s authorization was suspended and this sparked off various rounds of litigation, which need not be specifically referred to in the present context of the case. It will suffice to state that in pursuance of order, dated 25.2.2008 passed by respondent No. 1 in the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of suspension, respondent No. 2 has taken up the case for disposal. By the impugned order, he cancelled the authorization of the petitioner.

At the hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by respondent No. 2 does not contain any reasons and hence, the same is liable to be set aside. He submitted that though the petitioner filed an appeal against the said order, on advise that the order of respondent No. 2 is a nullity, he withdrew the same and chose to question the said order in the present writ petition.

I have heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and carefully perused the record.

Respondent No. 2 in his order having narrated the prior history of the case, referred to the posting of the case on different dates and the petitioner filing her explanation on 4.4.2008. While noting that the petitioner has not filed any documentary evidence, respondent No. 2 added the following paragraph, which is the only part of the order, which purports to contain the reasoning and conclusion.

In view of the above, the charges are framed against the F.P. Shop Dealer is grave in nature and it is not just and proper to allow the F.P. Shop Dealer to deal with essential commodities. Hence I hereby cancel the F.P. Shop authorization held by Smt. K. Vasundhara, F.P. Shop Dealer (Under suspension), C. Vengannapalli Village of Putlur Mandal.

From a reading of the entire order including the above reproduced portion, it is clear that the order is absolutely a non-speaking one, bereft of any reasons whatsoever. The approach of respondent No. 2 in pointing out that the petitioner has not filed any documentary evidence, suggests that he had thrown the burden completely on the petitioner, to prove in the negative that she has not committed any irregularities. Respondent No. 2 failed to discuss the charges individually and referred to any material in support of the charges framed against the petitioner. Having framed charges against the petitioner, the primary burden is on respondent No. 2 to prove mat the petitioner is guilty of those charges and if she fails to discharge the onus shifted on her, it will then be permissible for respondent No. 2 to hold that the charges are proved against her. Respondent No. 2 has not made any such effort in this regard.

The law is well settled that every judicial and quasi-judicial authority has duty to give reasons. (See Cyril Lasrado (dead) by Lrs. and Others Vs. Juliana Maria Lasrado and Another, . Duty to give reasons constitutes an integral part of natural justice and absence of reasons violates principles of natural justice. (See State of West Bengal v. Alpana Ray (2005) 7 SCJ 422.

In Vishnu Dev Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and Others, , the Supreme Court referred to the judgment in Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Limited v. Crabtree 1974 ICR 120 (NIRC) and quoted with approval the following passage.

''Failure to give reasons connotes to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind and the decision-taker to the contraversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at.'' Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the ''inscrutable face of the sphinx'', it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision.

In view of the failure of respondent No. 2 to give any reasons whatsoever, the impugned order passed by him suffers from serious infraction of principles of natural justice and hence, the same is quashed. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. This order, however, does not preclude respondent No. 2 from initiating the proceedings afresh and passing a reasoned order after giving the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing.