The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.38023 of 2014 Dated 10.12.2014 Between:
M/s.Hanuman Transport rep. by its Authorised representative Abhilash Goud And The State of Telangana, rep. by its Prl.Secretary, Civil Supplies Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad and 2 others.
…Petitioner …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.K.Surender Counsel for respondent No.1: GP for Civil Supplies (AP) Counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3: Mr.A.Ravinder Reddy, Corporation The Court made the following:
SC for Order:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside the show cause notice issued by the Joint Collector and EOED, District Office, Mahabubnagar D i s t r i c t , vide proceeding bearing No.Movt.PDS/1992/2014-1, dated 05.12.2014.
The petitioner is a unified transport contractor. On 02.12.2014, the consignment of rice was loaded by the petitioner in the lorry bearing registration No.AP 07 X 8739 engaged by it for transportation of rice from the State Ware Housing Corporation to MLS Point, Jadcherla. It appears that the said truck has not reached the destination point. The petitioner has, therefore, received the impugned show cause notice from the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar, wherein it is stated that as per the information furnished by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Enforcement, City-II, Hyderabad, a rice truck was unloaded at a rice mill in Kalvakurthi and that the truck bearing the above-mentioned registration number and carrying the stock of 22.031 metric tons of rice has not reached the MLS point at Jadcherla. The Joint Collector has, therefore, while calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why disciplinary action shall not be initiated against its authorized representative for suspending the contract, directed him to pay the cost of the rice at double its economic cost.
The main ground, on which the petitioner has questioned the direction issued by the Joint Collector to pay the cost of the rice at double its economic cost, is that before issuing the said direction, no notice was given to it.
I have heard Mr.K.Surender, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr.A.Ravinder Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Andhra Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, representing respondent Nos.2 and 3.
The facts narrated above would show that for the first time, the Joint Collector has issued the impugned notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why its transport contract shall not be suspended as per Clause 3 (iii) of the agreement. However, the Joint Collector has unilaterally concluded in the said notice that the petitioner is liable to pay the cost of the rice at double its economic cost. In my opinion, such a unilateral conclusion, without prior notice to the petitioner, cannot be sustained. If the Joint Collector had thought it fit to give an opportunity to the petitioner before imposing the penalty of suspension of its contract as per Clause 3 (iii) of the agreement, it defies any logic and reason as to why he felt that the petitioner is not entitled to a similar opportunity before saddling it with the liability of payment of cost of the rice and that too at double its economic cost. The reasons, which impelled the Joint Collector to issue show cause notice against the proposed suspension of transport contract of the petitioner, should have equally weighed with him to give the petitioner a similar opportunity against the proposed recovery of cost of the rice. Therefore, the impugned notice to the extent of issuing direction to the petitioner to pay the cost of the rice at double its economic cost is in violation of the principles of natural justice. To this extent, the impugned show cause notice is set aside.
At the hearing, it has come out that the petitioner has filed its explanation to the impugned show cause notice. The Joint Collector, Mahaboobnagar, shall consider the said representation and after giving the petitioner’s authorized representative an opportunity of personal hearing, pass a final order.
The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed to the extent indicated above.
As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.47564 of 2014, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.
(C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J)
Dt: 10th December, 2014
LUR