KALULAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(W) NO. 300/2000) 1 KALULAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(W) NO. 300/2000) Date of Judgment :- 24.02.2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA Mr. Mahesh Bora, for the appellant. None present for the respondents. BY THE COURT(PER HON'BLE MR.SANGEET LODHA,J.) 1. This special appeal is directed against order dated 6.3.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court , whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant for quashing order dated 10.12.96 passed by the District Supply Officer, Udaipur , appellate order dated 31.1.97 passed by the District Collector, Udaipur and revisional order dated 3.10.97 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur , stands dismissed. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this special appeal are that an authorisation was issued in favour of the appellant by the District Collector(Supply), Udaipur under the Rajasthan Food Grains & Other Essential Articles( Regulation of Distribution), Order 1976 ( in short “Order, 1976” hereinafter) authorising him to operate a fair price shop at Dharavan. On a complaint being received, the shop of the appellant was inspected by the Enforcement Inspector, Udaipur. During the course of inspection, it was found KALULAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(W) NO. 300/2000) 2 that the stock register of the shop was not properly maintained and the same contains false entries. On scrutiny of the record and physical verification of the stock , 975 Kg. wheat , 635.17 kg. Sugar , 1095 kg. rice and 440 ltrs. kerosine oil was found deficit. The stock and the record was seized . Thereafter,vide notice dated 1.9.96 issued by the District Supply Officer, Udaipur, the explanation of the appellant was sought regarding the deficit stock . In response to the notice, the appellant appeared before the District Supply Officer, Udaipur and vide communication dated 4.11.96 made a request to allow him the inspection of the record seized by the Inspecting Authority. It was made plain by the appellant vide said communication that on account of the non availability of the relevant record, he is not in position to file an appropriate reply to the notice. It is alleged that the appellant was not given an opportunity to inspect the record and straightaway order dated 10.12.96 was passed by the DSO, Udaipur whereby while holding the appellant guilty , his authorisation was cancelled under clause 8 of the Order, 1976 and his security deposit was also ordered to be forfeited in terms of provisions of clause 9 of the Order, 1976. That apart, a sum of Rs. 14,408/- was also ordered to be recovered from the appellant towards the difference of the cost of the deficit stock as per the prevalent market rates of the KALULAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(W) NO. 300/2000) 3 commodities. 3. Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order dated 10.12.96, the appellant preferred an appeal before the District Collector, Udaipur under clause 20 of Order, 1976. The appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated 10.12.96 . Thereafter, the revision petition preferred by the appellant under clause 22(a) of Order, 1976 before the Additional Food Commissioner, Rajasthan,Jaipur has also failed. 4. The writ petition preferred by the appellant assailing the validity of the aforesaid order has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge holding that no writ lies in the matters pertaining to cancellation of authorisation. That apart, the learned Single Judge found that in view of the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the authorities below, the writ petition has no substance or merits. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel that sole contention of the appellant before the learned Single Judge was that the order impugned dated 10.12.96 was passed by the DSO, Udaipur without giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant but, this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned Single Judge. It is submitted by the learned counsel that admittedly, the appellant had demanded inspection of the record so as to enable him to file reply to the show cause, KALULAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(W) NO. 300/2000) 4 but no such opportunity was afforded to him. The learned counsel submitted that the fact that the inspection of the record was not permitted and on that account , the appellant could not file the appropriate reply is not even disputed by the respondents in the reply to the writ petition filed by them. In this regard, the learned counsel has drawn our attention to the averments made in para 6 of the writ petition and the reply thereto. Accordingly, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the order impugned dated 10.12.96 passed by the DSO, Udaipur in gross violation of clause 8 & 9 of Order, 1976 and the principle of natural justice is not sustainable in the eye of law. 6. We have considered the submission of the learned counsel and perused the record. 7. Admittedly, the appellant vide communication dated 4.11.96 had requested the DSO, Udaipur to permit him the inspection of the record and had stated in unequivocal terms that in absence of the record, he is not in position to file appropriate reply. There is nothing on record to show that before passing the order the appellant was permitted to inspect the record. A bare perusal of the notice to show cause and the orders impugned reveal that the allegations against the appellant are based on the entries in the stock register which was seized by the Inspecting Authority. In this view of the matter, it was KALULAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(W) NO. 300/2000) 5 incumbent upon the authority concerned to either supply the copies of the relevant documents to the appellant or at least , the appellant should have been allowed to inspect the record relied upon to substantiate the allegations against him. 8. It is pertinent to note that as per clause 8 & 9 of Order,1976 no order for cancellation of the authorisation or forfeiture of the security deposits can be passed by the Collector or any other officer authorised by the State Government without giving an opportunity of hearing to the authorisation holder against the proposed action. 9. Moreover, fundamentals of fair play in action requires that an adjudicatory authority must disclose all evidence and material placed before it in the course of proceedings or which has come to his knowledge to the person affected , so as to enable him to deny or rebut the same and put forward his case in support of his defence. It is well settled law that if the power is conferred upon the authority to decide and determine to the prejudice of a person, duty to act judicially is implicit in exercise of such power. In considered opinion of this court, the authority concerned while passing the order impugned cancelling the authorisation of the appellant and forfeiting the security deposit has acted in a manner which violates the provisions of clause 8 & 9 of Order, 1976 so also the elementary principle of natural justice and fair KALULAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(W) NO. 300/2000) 6 play. 10. For the aforementioned reasons, in our considered opinion, the learned Single Judge has erred in declining to interfere with the orders impugned in the writ petition. 11. In the result, the special appeal succeeds, it is hereby allowed. Order under appeal is set aside. The writ petition is allowed . The orders impugned in the writ petition are set aside. The respondents are directed to supply the copies of the relevant documents to the appellant within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order . The appellant shall file a reply to the show cause notice, if he so desire, within a period of two weeks thereafter. The authority concerned shall pass the appropriate order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant within a period of two months thereafter. It is made clear that during the pendency of the proceedings against the appellant as aforesaid, he will not be entitled to operate the fair shop and the appellant's authorisation shall remain suspended . The entitlement of the appellant to refund of the amount , deposited by him in pursuance of the impugned order dated 10.12.96 , if any, shall be determined by the authority concerned at the time of passing of the final order. No order as to costs. (SANGEET LODHA),J. (A.M.KAPADIA),J. KALULAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(W) NO. 300/2000) 7 Aditya/-