IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.32252 OF 2016 (GM-EC) BETWEEN:
HAALUSIDDESHWARA YUVAKA SANGHA (REGD) HIRIYURU, ARSIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573103 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY H C HULIYAPPA S/O CHANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS.
(By Mr. GANGADHARAPPA A.V., ADV.,) AND:
1. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY … PETITIONER FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS 5TH FLOOR, CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION BUILDING CUNNINGHAM ROAD BENGALURU-560 052.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN-573201.
4. THE TAHSILDAR ARSIKERE TALUK ARSIKERE HASSAN DISTRICT-573 103. … RESPONDENTS (By Ms. H.C. KAVITA, LEARNED HCGP) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated 12-6-2014 passed by the R3 true copy of which is produced as Annx-B, order dated 6-9-2014 passed by the R2 true copy of which is produced as Annx-C and the order dated 1-4- 2016 passed by the R1 in case No.AANAASA 34 ECA/2014 an authenticated copy of which is produced in Annx-F repectively & etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri.Gangadharappa A.V., learned counsel for the petitioner.
Smt.H.C.Kavita, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents.
2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. The petitioner inter alia has prayed for the following reliefs:
“(a) A writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ on order quashing the order bearing No.Ji.Aa.Haa.F.P.D/22/2008-09 dated 12.6.2014 passed by the 3rd respondent true copy of which is produced as Annexure- B, order dated 6.9.2014 passed by the 2nd respondent in CFS:APPEAL No.36/2014-15 true copy of which is produced as Annexure-C and the order dated 1.4.2016 passed by the 1st respondent in case No.AaaNaaSa 34 ECA/2014 an authenticated copy of which is produced in Annexure-F respectively;
(b) any other appropriate writ or order or direction as the Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, including an order as to cost of this writ petition.”
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was granted a licence to run a fair price shop. However, on inspection which was made some time on 07.04.1999, certain irregularities were allegedly found and the authorization made in favour of the petitioner was kept under suspension pending an enquiry vide an order dated 27.05.1999. Thereafter, respondent No.3 issued a notice to the petitioner on 16.06.1999. The petitioner submitted a reply to the aforesaid notice on 21.06.1999. However, by an order dated 12.06.2014, the authorization in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed without assigning any reasons and therefore, suffers from the vice of non- application of mind and since no reasons have been assigned, therefore the petitioner has been deprived even of a right to file an appeal. On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader has supported the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. On perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that it does not contain reasons but the conclusions. It is trite law that even a quasi-judicial authority is required to assign reasons for passing the order. In view of the decision laid down by the Supreme court in ‘VICTORIA MEMORIAL HALL vs. HOWRAH GANATANTRIK NAGRIK’, 2010 (3) SCC 732, reasons were held to be the heartbeat of every conclusion, apart from being an essential feature of the principles of natural justice, that ensure transparency and fairness, in the decision making process.
7. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is accordingly quashed and set aside. The Deputy Commissioner is directed to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. Needless to state that the Deputy Commissioner shall decide the issue by passing a speaking order.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE RV