THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
Writ Appeal No.1502 of 2014
DATED:05.12.2014 Between:
B. Adinarayana Reddy, Putluru Mandal, Anantapur District.
And State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Civil Supplies, Hyderabad and others.
… Appellant ….Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
Writ Appeal No.1502 of 2014
Judgment: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)
This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order of the learned trial Judge, dated 30.10.2014, by which, the writ petition was dismissed deciding the matter on merit.
The appellant before us is a fair price shop dealer. He was enjoying the business of selling essential commodities with large number of ration card holders. A decision was taken for administrative necessity, to divide the area for better service. Naturally, this shop was split into two. Necessary orders were passed with reasons after hearing the writ petitioner. The appellate and the revisional authority confirmed the orders. But, it is alleged that the revising authority without serving any notice to the writ petitioner-appellant decided the matter ex-parte. The learned trial Judge, while examining the functioning of the fair price shop dealers, by the impugned order, dismissed the matter on merits.
We find that there is a doubt about the service of notice of hearing. It may be the writ petitioner-appellant was avoiding the notice or it was not served properly. But, we think that benefit of doubt should be given to the writ petitioner-appellant in order to give opportunity of being heard. But, by this time, decision has been taken by the revising authority and it has been implemented by engaging a new fair price shop dealer, who is also before us. Therefore, for ends of justice, we think that a post-decisional hearing may be given to the writ petitioner-appellant by the revising authority without disturbing the existing system and the unofficial respondent should also be given a hearing. Therefore, in order to avoid the controversy with regard to service of notice, we direct the revising authority to hear out the matter on 5.1.2015 at 11.00 A.M., for which, no notice shall be given to any of the parties. On that date, the revising authority shall take a decision without being influenced by earlier decisions even in absence of non-appearing party or parties. In that process, he may pass a fresh order, retain the earlier order or revise the same, as the situation may warrant. The judgment and order of the Hon’ble trial Judge is accordingly set aside. We also make it clear that the revising authority shall not be influenced or swayed away by the findings of the Hon’ble trial Judge either, since they were set aside. Obviously, the existing arrangement will abide by the decision so to be taken by the revising authority.
The appeal is accordingly allowed.
Consequently, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. No order as to costs.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ 5th December, 2014 Pnb SANJAY KUMAR, J