IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.26137 of 2014 BETWEEN Bandaru Yamuna.
AND ... PETITIONER The Government of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. K. GOVIND Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Though the writ petition was adjourned twice to enable the learned Assistant Government Pleader to get instructions, neither instructions are received nor any counter affidavit filed.
2. Petitioner is a fair price shop dealer, who had earlier approached this Court by WP.No.21569 of 2014 alleging that notwithstanding valid authorization in her favour, some other fair price shop dealer of Gollapally village was put in-charge of petitioner’s fair price shop No.20 of Thirumalapur village. By order dated 31.07.2014 in WPMP.No.27066 of 2014, in the said writ petition, this Court directed that as long as the petitioner’s authorization is valid and subsisting, the additional charge of the cards held by the petitioner cannot be given to another fair price shop dealer. However, the said order left it open for the competent authority to take appropriate action against the petitioner if there is any violation of her part.
3. While so, a show cause notice dated 24.07.2014 was issued requiring the petitioner show cause against two charges viz.
(1) petitioner having got married and on leaving the village after marriage, petitioner must relinquish the fair price shop but the petitioner, having got married, has not relinquished the fair price shop and (2) petitioner has violated the A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008.
4. Under reply of the petitioner dated 06.08.2014, she specifically contended that though her marriage was solemnized four years ago, she continues to reside in Thirumalapur village and her name is included in the voters list of the village and she also holds House Hold card and Aadhar card in the same village. Petitioner stated that she had cast her vote in the Gram Panchayat, M.LA. and M.P. Elections. Petitioner also specifically stated that her uncle is only helping her run the shop and denied violation of any provisions.
5. On the basis of the said explanation, the impugned order dated 30.08.2014 is passed by simply stating that the explanation of the petitioner is not convincing and the said order proceeds to hold that the petitioner is removed from the dealership on account of not residing in the said village of Thirumalapur and that her uncle is found running the shop.
6. The aforesaid order is questioned in this writ petition on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as her explanation is not all considered and is rejected by simply stating that it is not convincing.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in P. NAGARAJU v. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
[1]
DHARMAVARAM, ANANTAPUR where this Court disapproved similar such action of rejection of explanation by simply stating that it is no satisfactory. Para 13 of the decision is extracted hereunder for convenience:
“13. Similarly, reasons are required to be assigned why the explanation is not found satisfactory. The statement “explanation offered by the dealer is not satisfactory”, is a conclusion by itself. As to why the said explanation was not found satisfactory is to be the essential end result of the process of reasoning. The presence of reasons on record discloses the lines on which the mind has been applied by the adjudicating authority. The requirement to assign reasons has been spelt out long year ago in the following words of Justice Koka Subba Rao (as the learned Chief Justice, then was) in Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1966 SC 671.
“9. … If tribunals can make orders without giving reasons, the said power in the hands of unscrupulous or dishonest officers may turn out to be a potent weapon for abuse of power. But if reasons for an order are given, it will be an effective restraint on such abuse, as the order, if it discloses extraneous or irrelevant consideration, will be subject to judicial scrutiny and correction. A speaking order will at its best be a reasonable and at its worst be at least a plausible one …”
8. Even otherwise also it is evident from the facts of the present case that the petitioner’s specific case in the explanation, is a matter, which could have been easily verified by the Revenue Divisional Officer before passing the order and when the petitioner states that her name is included in the voters list and has all the essential household card and aadhar card from the same village and she has also voted from the same village for the elections, referred to above, the finding, as recorded, against the petitioner could not have been recorded without even conducting basic enquiry. The impugned order, therefore, is clearly passed without application of mind and cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J September 15, 2014 DSK
[1] 2012 (3) ALD 503