IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 16385 of 2008 Between: L. Subbulu, W/o. Yesuratnam, Vasepallipadu Village, Tangutur Mandal, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. byi ts District Collector, Ongole, Prakasam District. 2 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. byits Collector (CS)/Appellate Authority, Ongole, Prakasam District. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, Prakasam District. 4 The Tahsildar, Tangutur, Prakasam District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in thenature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent authorities with regard to issuing proceedings in Rc.NO. C/1509/2007, dt. 21-4-208 issued by the 2nd respondent and proceedings in Rc. CS2/1779/2008 dt. 9-6-2008 issued by the 3rd respondent herein where under the respondent authorities have cancelled the authorization of Fair Price Shop Dealership and consequently set-aside the same by declaring the impugned proceedings as illegal, arbitrary and in violative of rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and in violation of principles of natural justice and total non-application of mind and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.MALLIK Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 16385 of 2008 Oral Order: The petitioner is an authorizee for a Fair Price Shop in Vasepallipadu village, Tangutur Mandal, Prakasam district. When the petitioner’s authorization was suspended pending enquiry, she preferred an appeal to the 2nd respondent-Joint Collector. By the proceedings dated 06-11-2007 the 2nd respondent set aside the order of suspension of the petitioner’s authorization. Eventually by the order dated 21-04-2008 the 3rd respondent cancelled the authorization granted in favour of the petitioner. Thereagainst the petitioner preferred an appeal to the 1st respondent which authority by the order dated 09-06-2008 rejected the appeal. Aggrieved by the primary and confirming orders in appeal, the petitioner is before this Court seeking appropriate relief. It would appear that the Tahasildar, Tangutur had reported that the petitioner failed to distribute essential commodities in August, 2007. Thereupon a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and her authorization suspended pending enquiry by the 3rd respondent’s proceedings dated 31-08-2007. In the explanation dated 14-09-2007 submitted by the petitioner, while denying the charges it is inter alia alleged that the Tahasildar Tangutur had made away with an amount of Rs.5,000-00 (Rupees Five thousands only) cash and gold from the petitioner. Eventually a final show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner sought a copy of the report of the Tahasildar, Tangutur on which basis the suspension of authorization was passed; the said record was furnished to the petitioner, but the petitioner did not respond to the show cause notice dated 28-08- 2007 which was served on the petitioner on 05-03-2008. The 3rd respondent thereupon called upon the Tahasildar, Tangutur to offer his remarks on the earlier explanation submitted by the petitioner i.e., on 14-09-2007 wherein she made allegations against the Tahasildar, Tangutur. The Tahasildar, Tangutur appears to have reported to the 3rd respondent that from his discreet enquiries in the village it is revealed that the petitioner had diverted the entire stocks of essential comities viz., 22.34 qunitals of rice that were lifted from M.L.S. Point, Tangutur on 14-08-2007 for pecuniary benefit and that she was charging higher rates than the rates fixed by the Government i.e., Rs.5-50 per Kg of rice instead Rs.5.25 per Kg and that she was behaving high handedly at the time of distribution of essential commodities to the cardholders. The Tahasildar also appears to have denied the allegation of the petitioner with regard to the taking away of cash of Rs.5,000-00 and the gold. The Tahasildar also recommended for cancellation of the petitioner’s authorization. After recording the above facts, the 3rd respondent has recorded the following ‘reasons’ for ordering cancellation:: ‘Perused the record. Non submission of explanation for the show cause notice issued afresh even after supplying the records requisitioned by the delinquent dealer indicates that she has no explanation to offer for the vague and serious allegations made against the Inspecting Officer and also for other grave charges like diversion of E.Cs and selling E.Cs. at higher prices, which proved that she has committed the said irregularities and contravened the provisions contained in A.P.S. P.D.S., Control Order, 2001. Hence the F.P. Shop Authorization of Smt. L. Subbulu, Vasepallipadu village of Tangutur Mandal is hereby ordered to be cancelled.’ It is clear from this concluding and operative portion of the 3rd respondent’s order that the 3rd respondent primary authority who was exercising quasi judicial functions did not apply his mind to the facts. It is axiomatic that quasi judicial proceedings even by a Revenue Divisional Officer in ration shop authorization matters are solemn and formal proceedings and not a ritual devoid of substance. A quasi judicial authority is required to apply his mind to the charges and to the material which is presented to substantiate those charges and is then required to record conclusions by integrating the charges with the material available on record.. Fertile imagination and flights fancy are no substitute for such quasi judicial discipline. Ipse dixit has no place in quasi judicial determination. From the concluding paragraph of the 3rd respondent’s order extracted above, it is apparent that from the silence of the petitioner to the show cause notice, the 3rd respondent undertakes a huge leap without a logical foundation and records a conclusion that the petitioner had committed the irregularities alleged and had contravened with the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001. The 3rd respondent was required to deal with the oral or documentary evidence brought on record in the enquiry which induce probabilises the guilt of the petitioner. The learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing at the hearing today does not place before this Court any provision of law which enjoins a legal fiction that every authorizee of fair price shop is presumed to be guilty of transgression nor is there any principle of law placed before this Court that mere issuance of a show cause notice by the competent authority enjoins a presumption of guilt and the charged fair price shop dealer is required to establish his innocence or to disabuse the presumption of guilt. It is clear in the absence of any statutory authority to the contrary that the burden of establishing the charges of transgression of the Control Order, 2001 is on the respondents. The respondents cannot discharge that legal burden by mere issuance of a show cause notice. The burden must be discharged by some evidence which has a probative nexus with the charges. In the case on hand, there is a logical and material vacuum between the charges and the conclusion of guilt. A vacuum which is fatal to the vitality of the impugned order. The appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected by the 2nd respondent by the order dated 09-06-2008. The 2nd respondent appellate authority records the grounds of appeal which include a grievance that the 3rd respondent primary authority had passed the impugned order dated 21-04-2008 without conducting any independent enquiry; without giving any date for hearing and without affording an opportunity to the appellant to set her case. Other grounds of appeal were also recorded by the 2nd respondent in the order dated 09-06-2008. However the 2nd respondent also records that the main charge against the petitioner was that she had diverted 22.34 qunitals of rice lifted from M.L.S Point Tangutur to blackmarket. This allegation is not found with any degree of specificity in the show cause notice dated 28-08-2007. The 2nd respondent’s appellate order is equally perverse. The operative portion of the 2nd respondent order reads thus: ‘The case is finally came up for hearing on 24.5.2008. The case called Both the advocates present. Heard the arguments. The main charge against the appellate is that she has diverted 22.34 Qtls of Rice into blackmarket lifted from MLS Point. For such a grave charge the appellant has not offered any explanation before the disciplinary authority with in the stipulated time. Hence, I had no reason to interfere with the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, in his proceedings Rc.C/1509/2007 dt. 21.4.2008. Accordingly the appeal dismissed.’ On a true and fair construction of the appellate order it would appear that since the main charge against the petitioner is diversion of 22.34 quintals of rice and the petitioner had not offered any explanation before the disciplinary authority, the 1st respondent would not like to interfere with the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Clearly the appellate authority shared with the primary authority the misconception of law that a charge is deemed to have been proved unless disproved by the charged ration shop authorizee. This is not the law and therefore the orders of the primary and appellate authority cannot be sustained. On the aforesaid analysis the order of the 3rd respondent dated 21- 04-2008 and the order of the 2nd respondent dated 09-06-2008 confirming the 3rd respondent’s order are unsustainable and are accordingly set aside. It shall now open to the 3rd respondent to return to the basics of a quasi judicial enquiry and record a fresh order after referring to the material on the basis of which conclusions are recorded. Analysis of evidence and reasons clearly set out in support of the conclusions recorded are inalienable and integral facets of quasi judicial discipline as pointed out by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. M.L. Capoor1. The Supreme Court held that the reasons are the links between the facts on which the conclusions are based and the conclusions themselves and in the absence of reasons hyphenating facts and conclusions, conclusions are mere ipse dixit. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. There shall however be no order as to costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 19-08-2008 pvks