K.V. SHIVAKUMAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 02.03.2013 passed by the second respondent and the order dated 31.10.2012 passed by the third respondent, impugned at Annexures -E and D to the petition. The petitioner was issued the authorisation to disburse the essential commodities at Thirumani village, Pavagada Taluk. The authorisation was issued to the petitioner in No. 70/98 -99. When this was the position, the fourth respondent along with the Food Inspector is stated to have visited the village on 07.03.2012 and at that point, some villagers had complained to the fourth respondent that the petitioner is charging more than the prescribed amount. The fourth respondent has thereafter by a letter dated 12.03.2012 informed the third respondent to take necessary action against the petitioner under the Essential Commodities Act. Pursuant thereto, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 16.07.2012 and the proceedings were held by the Deputy Commissioner. At the first instance, the authorisation issued in favour of the petitioner had been suspended and the enquiry was proposed. The petitioner had challenged the same and the Appellate Authority having set aside the said order had directed the Deputy Commissioner to conclude the proceedings on the allegations which had been made against the petitioner. Subsequent thereto, the order dated 31.10.2012 was passed by the Deputy Commissioner alleging that the petitioner had violated the terms of authorisation and the same was ordered to be cancelled. The petitioner had filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority by the order dated 02.03.2013 has upheld the order of the Deputy Commissioner. The petitioner therefore is before this Court.

(2.) HAVING considered the rival contentions and having secured the original file maintained by the authorities, a perusal of the show cause notice would indicate that the allegations made against the petitioner were with regard to the short delivery of the essential commodities to the cardholders, excess amount being charged from the cardholders and also that the board required to be displayed as per the Regulation had not been displayed. The petitioner had issued his reply to the show cause notice. The Deputy Commissioner while considering the rival contentions, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner has at the outset referred to the two reports submitted by the Tahsildar and both being dated 23.01.2012. By the first report, it has been indicated that the allegations made against the petitioner is not true, while in the second report, the allegations as made by the cardholders have been referred to and the discrepancies is held to be existing. It is in that circumstance, the Deputy Commissioner has thereafter proceeded to consider the matter. In order to ascertain as to whether in fact there were two reports, the records were perused.

(3.) IN such circumstance, though there were two reports, contrary to one another, the manner in which one of the reports which was beneficial to the petitioner has been ignored is not appropriate. In such circumstance, the Deputy Commissioner should have required the fourth respondent -Tahsildar who was the complainant to independently establish the allegations made against the petitioner since in any event, the fourth respondent had taken steps to make the report based on certain allegations said to have been made by some of the cardholders by submitting a representation when he along with the Food Inspector had visited the village. Therefore, if the charges alleged which was based on the complaint of the cardholders was to be established, in a normal circumstance, when the Tahsildar had submitted two reports, atleast the Deputy Commissioner should have required the examination of the cardholders with regard to the allegations. In any event, with regard to the allegation that the petitioner was charging more than the rate fixed by the Government, it has been held that the same was not established. The issue which remained was with regard to the manner in which the entries were made in the records maintained in the Fair Price Depot and the entries made in the cards of the cardholders to come to a conclusion as to whether the entries had tallied with each other or was there short delivery? Even with regard to the same, the Deputy Commissioner though has made reference to the same, this should be looked at from the point where the Tahsildar at the first instance had stated that the allegations were not true.