WP/6416/2006 of Smt.T.Nagamani Vs The District Collector, at Sangareddy, Medak District on 26 December 2006

ORAL ORDER:

W.P.No.6416 of 2006

This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring theproceedings of the third respondent dated 1.7.2005 cancelling theauthorization of the petitioner, which was confirmed by the secondrespondent vide proceedings dated 17.10.2005 and further confirmed bythe first respondent vide order dated 31.12.2005 as arbitrary and illegal.

It appears, petitioner was the fair price shop dealer of Lakudaramvillage, Kondapaka mandal, Medak district. While so, her authorizationwas cancelled by the third respondent vide proceedings dated 1.7.2005enumerating as many as (9) irregularities purported to have beencommitted by the petitioner. An explanation was called for from thepetitioner vide show cause notice dated 6.4.2005 and the petitionersubmitted her explanation dated 20.4.2005 to the said show causenotice. The third respondent, except enumerating the irregularitiespurported to have been committed by the petitioner, did not discuss theexplanation submitted by the petitioner and stated that the explanation ofthe petitioner is not satisfactory. It seems, the impugned cancellationorder was passed based on the report of the fourth respondent-MandalRevenue Officer to the effect that the dealer has indulged in clandestinebusiness. The third respondent without conducting any independentenquiry, except relying on the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, haspassed the impugned cancellation order, which was confirmed by theappellate authority as well as revisional authority. Hence the writpetition.

Heard both sides.

I am of the opinion that the purported irregularities are vague andgeneral, and no specific allegations have been made against thepetitioner. The petitioner submitted her explanation, but the same wasnot considered by the third respondent while passing the impugnedorder. Though wild allegations of clandestine business have beenalleged against the petitioner, no independent enquiry has beenconducted by the third respondent except stating that the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not convincing. It appears, the impugnedorder has been passed only on the basis of the report purported to havebeen submitted by the fourth respondent dated 21.1.2005 and 23.5.2005. No witness was examined and no opportunity was given to the petitionerin the enquiry purported to have been conducted by the fourthrespondent. For all the above reasons, the order passed by the thirdrespondent dated 1.7.2005, which was confirmed by the secondrespondent and further confirmed by the first respondent are in grossviolation of principles of natural justice, therefore, the same are liable tobe set aside.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orderpassed by the third respondent dated 1.7.2005 as confirmed by thesecond respondent vide order dated 17.10.2005 and further confirmed bythe first respondent vide order dated 31.12.2005 are set aside and thematter is remitted back to the third respndent for fresh consideration of thematter after putting the petitioner on notice. The entire exercise shall becompleted within a period of three months from the date of receipt of acopy of this order. Till such time, status quo as on today shall continue. No order as to costs.

Date: 26.12.2006

_____________

C.V.RAMULU, J

DA

26.12.2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESHAT HYDERABAD

Date: 26[th] December, 2006

Between:

Smt.T.Nagamani

And

The District Collector,at Sanga Reddy, Medak district & others.

.. Petitioner

.. Respondents