HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.33849 of 2014 Date:11.11.2014 Between: Shabbir Sab, S/o Chotu Saab . Petitioner And The State of Telangana, reptd by its Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Hyderabad and two others.
. Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri K.Raji Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: GP for Civil Supplies (Telangana State) The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside proceedings No.B2/4902/2014, dated 28.10.2014, of respondent No.2, whereby he has cancelled the petitioner’s fair price shop authorization.
I have heard Sri K.Raji Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies (Telangana State).
The petitioner, who is a permanent fair price shop dealer, has received a show cause notice, vide proceedings No.B2/4902/2014, dated 23.07.2014, issued by respondent No.2 with the following charges:-
“1. That the dealer has been distributing the ECs at higher rates than fixed by the Govt. and thus he violated the APSPDS Control Order, 2008.
2. That the dealer has been distributing the ECs with short weighments to the card holders, thus he violated the APSPDS Control Order, 2008.
3. That the dealer failed to maintain the schedule timings, and he opens the shop for 2 or 3 days only in a month and thus, violated Clause-22 of sub-clause (v) of condition 4 C1 1 & 2 of APSPDS Control Order, 2008.
4. That the dealer has been misbehaving with the card holders, thus he violated the APSPDS Control Order, 2008.”
In reply to the said show cause notice, the petitioner has given a detailed explanation, wherein he has unequivocally denied all the four charges. Purporting to consider the said explanation, respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order cancelling the petitioner’s fair price shop authorization.
A perusal of the impugned order shows that respondent No.2 has heavily relied upon the purported report, dated 27.10.2014, of the Assistant Supply Officer, Sangareddy Division. The proximity between the said report and the impugned order would show that there was hardly any time for respondent No.2 to even furnish a copy of the said report to the petitioner, leave alone inviting his objections to the contents of the said report.
The fundamental principle of administrative law is that a person against whom any material is proposed to be used must be supplied with such material giving him an opportunity of explaining the adverse material against him. Respondent No.2 has completely ignored this principle and condemned the petitioner solely based on the report, dated 27.10.2014, of the Assistant Supply Officer, Sangareddy Division. The causal approach of respondent No.2 in passing the impugned order is reflected from the fact that he has not even referred to the charges framed against the petitioner which are mentioned in the show cause notice, dated 23.07.2014.
Respondent No.2 has evidently relied upon the Assistant Supply Officer’s report, as gospel truth and terminated the petitioner’s fair price shop authorization. Viewed from any angle, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is, accordingly, quashed.
Ordinarily, this Court would have remitted the case to respondent No.2 for a fresh enquiry. However, such a course is a futile exercise for the reason that the nature of the charges framed against the petitioner and the show cause notice are wholly vague and unsupported by any prima facie material. For instance, charge No.1, that the petitioner has been distributing the essential commodities at higher rates than fixed by the Government, is bereft of any details such as the names of the essential commodities and the higher rates at which the petitioner has been allegedly distributing. Similarly, charge No.2 which refers to the alleged short weighments also lacks any details as to the names of the essential commodities and the actual weighment with which the petitioner is distributing. Except denying these allegations, the petitioner cannot produce any evidence to disprove the same for, the primary burden lies on respondent No.2 to prove these charges. Therefore, the very show cause notice itself is liable to be quashed as the same suffers from vagueness and lack of any material details, thereby, disabling the petitioner to offer proper and effective explanation.
For the above-mentioned reasons, the show cause notice in proceedings No.B2/4902/2014, dated 23.07.2014, issued by respondent No.2 is also quashed.
The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed.
As a sequel, W.P.M.P.Nos.42350 and 42351 of 2014 are disposed of as infructuous.
JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA
REDDY
11th November 2014 DR