HANUMANTHA GOWDA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 32181 /2004 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The respondents herein are the respondents in the writ petition.

(2.) THE appellant is an authorised dealer of a Fair Price Depot under the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution system) Control Order, 1992. On the basis of complaints regarding irregularities in the distribution of foodgrains through the appellants fair price depot, the 2nd respondent conducted a surprise inspection on 20. 7. 2004. Based on the report of the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent Deputy Commissioner issued Annexure-B notice dated 27. 07. 2004 requiring the appellant to show cause why action should not be taken against him in respect of the authorisation given to him under the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution system) Control Order, 1992. On 31. 7. 2004 the 2nd respondent -Tahsildar issued Annexure-C order authorising the 3rd respondent to distribute the essential commodities to the cardholders of the appellant's fair price depot. Challenging Annexure-B and C, the appellant filed the writ petition. The respondents opposed the prayers in the writ petition by filing a statement of objection. The learned Single Judge recorded the submission of the learned Government Pleader appearing for Respondents 1 and 2 that no final order had been passed in respect of the petitioner's fair price depot and that after receiving the petitioner's reply to the show cause notice, the 1st respondent will pass appropriate orders. In view of the above submission of the Government Pleader, the learned Single Judge held that it was not a fit case to warrant interference and accordingly dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition, the writ petitioner has filed this writ appeal.

(3.) THE main contention of the appellant is that Annexure-C order was passed before the expiry of the period of one week given in annexure-B show cause notice for submitting explanation. It is contended that the 2nd respondent had no jurisdiction to issue Annexure-C before the the expiry of the period of one week granted for submitting explanation. We do not find any merit in this contention. Obviously Annexure-B is a show cause issued under Clause 12 (1) of the Karnataka Essential commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1992 which confers power on the Authorised Authority to cancel the authorisation given to an authorised dealer of the fair price depot after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Clause 12 (2) of the said Control order confers power on the Authorised Authority to suspend the authorisation pending enquiry for cancellation of authorisation, if the authorised Authority is satisfied that prima facie the conditions of the authorisation or the provisions of the order are contravened. Even though Annexure-C order does not specifically refer to any suspension under Clause-12 (2), Annexure-C order amounts to suspension of the authorisation and making alternative arrangement for distribution of the essential commodities through the 3rd respondent. No notice is required to be issued before passing an order of suspension under clause 12 (2 ). Therefore the contention of the appellant that Annexure-C could not have been issued before the expiry of one week granted in annexure-B for submitting explanation, is without any legal basis. Annexure-C notice was in respect of the proposed cancellation of the authorisation. Admittely, no orders was passed cancelling the authorisation before the expiry of the period of one week mentioned in Annexure-C.