IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5794 of 2008 Between: B.Thayalurappa S/o.Venkatappa R/o.Marwada (V) Peddabangarunatham Post Kuppam(M) Chittoor Dist ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Chittoor Dist 2 The Joint Collector, Chittoor Dist 3 The Sub Collector, Madanapalle, Chittoor District 4 The Tahasildar, Kuppam(M), Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.V.RAMANA for MR.O.MANOHER REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a writ of Certiorari to quash orders dated 25-09-1996, 25-02-1997 and 12-12- 2007 passed by respondents 3, 2 and 1 respectively. Heard Sri S.V.Ramana, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. The petitioner has been a fair price shop dealer of Marwada Village, Kuppam Mandal, Chittoor District. Two charges were framed against him and they read as under: ‘Charge-1: The dealer is selling Essential Commodities at the following higher rates than the rates fixed by the Government. Sugar at Rs.9.50 per kg instead of Rs.9.25, Kerosene at Rs.3.50 per litre instead of Rs.2.95. Charge-2: That the dealer was collecting extra Re.1/- per card at the time of distribution of Essential Commodities.’ Respondent No.3 issued a show-cause notice and the petitioner submitted his explanation on 01-01-1996. Purporting to consider the said explanation, respondent No.3 passed order dated 25-09-1996, by which, he cancelled the authorization of the petitioner by holding that both the charges were proved. The petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No.2 but he was unsuccessful with the dismissal of the said appeal by respondent No.2 vide order dated 25-02- 1997. The petitioner then filed a revision petition, which also met the same fate, as respondent No.1 dismissed the same on 12-12-2007. Assailing these three orders, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. A perusal of the order passed by respondent No.3 shows that the petitioner, in his explanation to Charge-1 that he is selling essential commodities at higher prices than the prices fixed by the Government, unequivocally denied the said charge. While dealing with the said charge, respondent No.3 rendered the following finding: ‘Certain card holders bearing Nos.168941, 162958 and 169008 and 10 others have deposed before the inspecting officer and other official like nodal officer and etc., that he is selling E.Cs at higher rates. Hence, the charge is held proved.’ Respondent No.3 has not given the names of the cardholders, who deposed against the petitioner that he was selling essential commodities at higher prices. He has not mentioned whether the alleged cardholders were examined in the presence of the petitioner and whether the petitioner was given any opportunity of confronting the said cardholders with reference to their alleged statements. Respondent No.3 had merely gone by the so-called statements of certain cardholders recorded by the Inspecting Officer. In my considered view, the whole approach of respondent No.3 is antithesis to the principles of natural justice. Since the cancellation of the petitioner’s authorization of fair price shop dealership results in serious adverse consequences to him, a legal obligation is cast on respondent No.3 to ensure that the petitioner receives fair hearing, which includes a reasonable opportunity to him not only to put forth his case, but also to controvert the evidence against him. In this view of the matter, I am fully convinced that respondent No.3 has not afforded the petitioner the opportunity, he deserves to be granted, before taking the extreme action of cancelling his authorization. Similar is the approach of respondent No.3 in dealing with charge No.2. This charge relates to the petitioner collecting one rupee extra per each card at the time of distribution of the essential commodities. Respondent No.3, while dealing with the explanation of the petitioner, who denied the said charge also, again based his finding on certain statements of cardholders, whose names are not mentioned, but their statements are said to have been recorded during PVP (Prajalavaddaku Palana) Gram Sabha. For the same reasons, as mentioned in respect of finding on charge No.1, the finding on charge No.2 also suffers from patent illegality. The order of respondent No.3 is, therefore, liable to be set aside. Respondent No.2, who is the appellate authority, has not given any reasons, whatsoever, for confirming the order of respondent No.3 on the ground that neither the petitioner nor his Advocate was present during the hearing. Respondent No.1, in his order, while confirming the orders of respondents 3 and 2, merely stated that the petitioner has not brought forth any new facts or material evidence to mitigate the charges framed against him and that the arguments of revision petitioner run contrary to the material evidence available in the case. All the three hierarchical authorities proceeded on the premise that the charges were proved, without there being any evidence in support thereof. In short, this is a case, where orders are passed without there being any evidence, whatsoever, brought forth on record. All these three orders are, therefore, liable to be quashed and they are, accordingly, quashed. The respondents are, however, given an opportunity to initiate proceedings afresh, if they so desire. Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed. ____________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 18-03-2008 LUR