WP/23316/2003 of M.Lakshminarayana, Vs The District Collector, Anantapur. on 30 December 2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAMWRIT PETITION NO : 23316 of 2003

Between:

M.Lakshminarayana, S/o M.Narayanappa

R/o Kurugunta Village, Anantapur Mandal and District.

AND

..... PETITIONER

1 The District Collector, Anantapur.

2 The Joint Collector, Anantapur.

3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur.

4 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Anantapur

.....RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased toissue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the orderof the 1st respondent passed in D.Dis.K4/A.T.P/4821/03 dated 18-10-2003confirming the order of the 2nd and 3rd respondent passed in D.DisK4/A.T.P/1457/2000 dated 31.3.2003 and D.Dis.No.D1/CS/776/99 dated 26-2-2000as illegal arbitrary and is in violation of principles of natural justice and consequentlydirect the respondents to restore the authorization granted in favour of the petitioner.

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.O.MANOHER REDDY

Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 4: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

The Court made the following:

Oral order:-

The petitioner was appointed as a ‘fair price shop dealer’ of Kurugunta village,Anantapur mandal and District in 1984. It appears that the 4[th] respondent--MandalRevenue Officer, Anantapur, while inspecting the examination center at KoruguntaResidential School at the Group-I preliminary examination, on 04-04-1993 saw anauto rickshaw carrying a plastic can with blue dyed kerosene proceeding towardsAnantapur town. On his enquiries with the auto driver, the 4[th] respondent inferredthat the kerosene was drawn from the fair price shop run by the petitioner and wasbeing irregularly transported on the petitioner’s instructions. Thereupon, the 3[rd]respondent, on 09-04-1999, suspended the authorization of the petitioner and alsocalled upon him to show cause why his dealership should not be cancelled. In hisorder dated 09-04-1999, the 3[rd] respondent set out two articles of charge viz., (a) thatthe petitioner was involved in Section 6-A (Essential Commodities Act, 1955) case,while diverting PDS kerosene oil of about 108 litres into the black market for hispecuniary gains, thereby contravening the clause 28 of the A.P.P.P. (L & RS) Order,1980 and (b) that the petitioner had diverted the blue dyed kerosene oil meant forration card holders under the public distribution system through Auto No. AP-02-T9174 for his pecuniary gains to Sri S. Narayanaswamy of Anantapur and that hethereby violated condition No.13 of the authorization.

The petitioner submitted his explanation to the show cause notice and by theorder dated 26-02-2000, the 3[rd] respondent cancelled the petitioner’s licence for thefair price shop. It is required to be noticed that in the order dated 26-02-2000 the 3[rd]respondent referred to the fact that on previous occasions in 1997, the petitioner’sauthorization was suspended, pending inquiry, on the report of the Mandal RevenueOfficer, Anantapur and thereafter restored by imposing a fine of Rs.350-00; andagain on another occasion, he was warned to be careful in future in remitting demand drafts towards essential commodities allotted to his fair price shop. Thiswas by proceedings dated 22-12-1998. These instances of earlier misconduct of thepetitioner were not put to him in the show cause notice dated 09-04-1999. Even inthe impugned order, the 3[rd] respondent did not refer to any evidence on the basis ofwhich he concluded ipse dixit that the fair price shop dealer had diverted the publicdistribution commodities into the black market in the auto rickshaw No. AP-02-T-9174.

Be that as it may, as there was an appellate remedy and he was informed so, thepetitioner preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order of the 3[rd] respondent tothe 2[nd] respondent. The 2[nd] respondent, by the order dated 31-03-2003 rejected theappeal. The following has been recorded by the 2[nd] respondent in rejecting theappeal:

“…The case has been posted for final hearing on 15-03-2003. The advocatefor the appellant has attended the hearing and argued stating that there wasdelay in lifting the E.Cs. and that the 108 litres of K. Oil that was seized whilebeing transported through an Auto is not related to the FP shop and that thesame lapse was not detected during the inspection and that the MandalRevenue Officer, has not been in good terms with the FP shop dealer.

Perused the grounds of the appeal, orders and the records of lower court andheard the arguments. As seen from the records, it is found that thecancellation orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur arecorrect and it is also found that the appellant had committed graveirregularities like non-distribution of school rice and misuse of 183 literes of K.Oil.

In view of the above, I feel it is not necessary to interfere with the orderspassed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur and accordingly theappeal is dismissed.”

As is apparent, the 2[nd] respondent’s order don’t even contain an apology forreasons. An higher level of perversity, is discernable in the order of the 2[nd]respondent. As the petitioner had the revisional remedy available to the 1[st]respondent, he pursued such a remedy. The 1[st] respondent, relying on two reportsof the Mandal Revenue Officer, Anantapur, dated 04-04-1999 and 17-04-1999,which were not furnished to the petitioner and in respect of whose contents thepetitioner’s response was not sought, concluded in the revision that the petitioner had not delivered 183 litres of kerosene oil to 61 card holders and had diverted thekerosene by the auto rickshaw for use in black market. The 1[st] respondent’srevisional order also recorded, on the basis of the ex-parte reports of the 4[th]respondent that the petitioner had not made entries relating to March sales ofkerosene oil in 61 cards specified in the revisional order. The 1[st] respondentadditionally recorded that the petitioner did not produce the stock register before anyauthority in the counter report of the Deputy Tahasildar (Civil Supplies), Anantapur.

Thus, as could be seen, on the basis of ex-partes report of the 4[th] respondent,the 1[st] respondent came to a conclusion as to the misconduct of the petitioner onallegations, which are not even put to him in the show cause notice of the 3[rd]respondent dated 09-04-1999. The entirety of the proceedings of the 1[st] to 3[rd]respondents are perverse and unsustainable. There is not even a ritualisticcompliance, even with the minimum standards of fair play. Apart from being anexposition of the incompetence of the 1[st] to 3[rd] respondents in conducting aninquiry, even into as simple an issue as to the misconduct or irregularity of the fairprice shop dealers, nothing fruitful to the public interest has resulted from theelaborate exercise of 1[st] to 3[rd] respondents.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The order of the 3[rd] respondent dated 26-02-2000 as confirmed in appeal by the 2[nd] respondent by order dated 31-03-2003 andfurther confirmed by the rejection of the revision by the 1[st] respondent by order dated18-10-2003, are all set aside and quashed.

Conclusion

From a perusal of the record in this case, it appears that there was on record somematerial on the basis of which proceedings could have been initiated against thepetitioner and action could have been taken against him in a sustainable manner,had action been pursued even with a modicum of forensic discipline. Unfortunately,the impugned orders fell short of even minimul standards of forensic discipline andlogical harmony. Perhaps, in order to safeguard the public interest, it is necessarythat Revenue Officials, at every level, who are entrusted with the task of quasijudicial powers are given a minimul training in the conduct of disciplinaryproceedings, before allotting them quasi judicial functions.

The writ petition is allowed, as above. There shall be no order as to costs.

______________________

GODA RAGHURAM, J

Dt. 30-12-2004

Pvks/*

Nb: Furnish a copy of this order to the Chief Secretary to the Government, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad for kind consideration.

That Rule Nisi has been made absolute, as above.

Witness the Hon’ble Sri Devinder Gupta, the Chief Justice on Thursday the 30[th] dayof December, Two thousand and four.

To

1 The District Collector, Anantapur.

2 The Joint Collector, Anantapur.

3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur.

4 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Anantapur

5. 2CCs to the Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, A.P. High Court Buildings,Hyderabad (OUT).

6. 2CD copies

7. The Chief Secretary to the Government, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad forkind consideration.

Form-NIC-OGS/WP{}