CHANDRAPPA Vs. ZILLA PARISHAD HASSAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) in this petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 25-9-1989 passed by the chief secretary, zilla parishad, hassan in No. Zph/food/87-89-90. The petitioner has also sought for quashing the order dated 27-9-1989 bearing No. Tpc/foodycr/45/89-90 Annexure-C issued by the block development officer, arsikere. In addition to this, the petitioner has sought for quashing the show cause notice dated 25-9-1989 bcaring No. Zph/food/87-89-90 anncxure-d issued by the chief secretary, zilla parishad to the petitioner. He has also sought for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to forbear from taking any action against the petitioner pursuant to the report submitted by the third respondent pursuant to anncxurc-d show cause notice.

(2.) the pctitipncr is a retail dealer. He holdsa retail dealers licence issued in form-d under clause (2) of the Karnataka essential commodities licensing Order, 1986. The licence which is produced as anncxure-a enables him to do the business as a retail dealer in foodgrains, sugar and edible oils. He was granted authorisation under the scheme of the state government for distribution of fair price commodities to card holders. Under the scheme framed by the state government for distribution of fair price commodities the authorisation can be granted to only those persons who hold a retail dealers licence issued under the Karnataka essential commodities retail dealers licensing Order, 1986. .the authorisation is issued on an undertaking given in writing by the person or society to whom authorisation is granted.

(3.) as per the report received by the 2nd respondent from the 3rd respondent, certain irregularities were noticed m the distribution of fair price commodities by the petitioner. Therefore, the authorisation granted to him for distribution of fair price commodities was suspended by the impugned order dated 25-9-1989. As a result of suspension of the authorisation the fair price commodities could nol be supplied to the petitioner and at the same time the supply of the fair price commodities to the various card holders who were assigned to the shop of the petitioner could not be withheld; therefore the block development officer, arsikcrc who is authorised to deal with the distribution of fair price commodities directed that temporarily the distribution of fair price commodities to the card holders who were assigned to the petitioner shop should be made through one Sri jagadecsh fair price shop, habbanaghatta by the order dated 27-9-1989. Therefore, a show cause notice dated 25-9-1989 (Annexure-D) was issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why the authorisation should not be cancelled for the reasons stated in the show cause notice. It is the validity of these orders that is challenged in this writ petition.