S. Raju vs C.S. Chithran and Others

T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.—The petitioner challenges the orders passed by the Commissioner of Civil Supplies and the Government by exercising the powers of revision, whereby the appointment of the petitioner as the licensee of ARD No. 80 was set aside by the Commissioner and the 1st respondent was directed to be appointed.

The notification inviting application for the appointment of ARD No. 80 is dated 24.1.2005. The locality is Ward No. 2 of Alappuzha Municipality at a place called Kommady. Only three applicants were there. The petitioner was the successful candidate and the he was granted appointment by the 5th respondent-District Supply Officer as per Exhibit P1 order. This was based on the comparative assessment of the merit of the candidate. An appeal was filed by the 1st respondent before the District Collector under the relevant provisions of the Kerala Rationing Order, which was dismissed as per Exhibit P2.

Thereafter, the 1st respondent challenged the same by filing Revision Petition under Clause 45(10) of the Kerala Rationing Order before the Commissioner of Civil Supplies. Exhibit P3 is the order passed by the Commissioner and Exhibit P5 is the order passed by the Government.

The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the proceedings of the Commissioner and the Government suffer from serious infirmity leading to the violation of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that the points raised by the 1st respondent in the Revision Petition was subjected to an enquiry by the Vigilance Officer of the Office of the Civil Supplies Commissioner and his report has been relied upon in the matter for passing Exhibit P3 order. The copy of the report was not furnished to the petitioner and the 1st respondent. Apart from that, the Vigilance Officer has also not issued any notice to the petitioner. It is therefore pointed out that adverse materials collected against the petitioner by the Vigilance Officer have been relied upon without furnishing the details to the petitioner and without allowing an opportunity for the petitioner to file objections to the said report. It is pointed out that the same infirmity is there with regard to the order passed by the Government as per Exhibit P5.

The order passed by the Commissioner as per Exhibit P3 shows that the Vigilance Officer was deputed on finding that the records available in the relevant files and those which are produced are not sufficient to examine the veracity of the contentions raised by the 1st respondent. The report of the Vigilance Officer is referred to as item (6) in the order Exhibit P3 and the same is dated 13.7.2009. The proceedings show that the hearing was held on 28.4.2009. Therefore, evidently, the report was called for after the final hearing of the Revision Petition was over. Ultimately, the order is passed on 12.11.2009, on the basis of the said report.

Even though the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that there was no application by the petitioner to furnish a copy of the report, that will not affect the contentions of the petitioner, in the light of the fact that it is well settled that if an adverse material is sought to be relied upon against a party in a proceedings, he is entitled, as a matter of right, to be communicated the contents of the report, whatever it may be. Further, he could not have applied for it as the report was called for after the hearing of the Revision Petition.

A reading of Exhibit P3 shows that all the conclusions are based on the said report of the Vigilance Officer. Accordingly, the contentions of the 1st respondent have been accepted and after allowing the revision petition, the 1st respondent was directed to be appointed also.

Evidently, the copy of the report was not furnished to the petitioner or to the first respondent. Therefore, the same vitiates the entire proceedings. The petitioner was entitled to be furnished a copy of the report and he should have been given an opportunity to file objections also. Apart from the petitioner, the 1st respondent also should have been furnished a copy of the said report. Therefore, since there is non-compliance of the principles of natural justice, the orders Exhibits P3 and P5 are quashed.

There will be a direction to the Commissioner of Civil Supplies to rehear the Revision Petition filed by the 1st respondent after notice to the petitioner, the 1st respondent and any other necessary parties. Before a hearing is conducted, copies of the report of the Vigilance Officer mentioned as item No. (6) in the order Exhibit P3 will be furnished to the petitioner as well as the first respondent. They will be given sufficient opportunity to file objections in the matter. The Revision Petition will be disposed of within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

The Writ Petition is allowed of as above. It is made clear that I have not considered anything on the merits of the claim of either of the parties. No costs.