K B DAYANANDA Vs. TAHSILDAR BELUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is running a Fair Price Depot at Karagada Village, Kasaba Hobli, Belur Taluk, in this petition, has called in question the correctness of the show cause notice dated 22nd of April 1999, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-C, and also the order dated 4th of May 1999, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-E, passed by the first respondent-Tahsildar.

(2.) THE petitioner has obtained authorisation issued under the provisions of the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as "the Control Order"), for purchase, sales, storage for sale of food grains and other essential commodities from the Deputy Commissioner, Hassan District, on 6th of October 1995 and the same was being renewed from time to time and it is made valid till 31st of December 1999. The petitioner also has obtained retail dealers licence for the purpose of carrying on business in purchase, sale and storage for sale of essential commodities under the provisions of the Karnataka Essential Commodities Licensing Order, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Licensing Order"), from the first respondent. The first respondent, by means of his show cause notice Annexure-C dated 22nd of April 1999, called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why action should not be taken against him for violation of the provisions of the Control Order in the light of several charges levelled against him in the show cause notice. Pursuant to the said show cause notice, the petitioner, by means of his explanation dated 30th of April 1999, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-D, denied the charges levelled against him. Thereafter, the first respondent, by means of his order dated 4th of May 1999, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-E, impugned in this petition, has suspended the petitioner's licence issued under the provisions of the Licensing Order and directed that the distribution of essential commodities, which were entrusted to the petitioner, could be made from the month of May through Sri Mallegowda Hanike Gram Fair Price Shop.

(3.) SRI A. V. Gangadharappa, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, challenged impugned order Annexure-E on three grounds. Firstly, he submitted that the first respondent-Tahsildar has no jurisdiction or authority in law to pass the said order. Secondly, he submitted that the first respondent having issued notice Annexure-C charging the petitioner of the violation of the provisions of the Control Order, has seriously erred in passing the order Annexure-E suspending the licence granted to the petitioner under the provisions of the Licensing Order, as there was no show cause notice issued informing contravention of the provisions of the Licensing Order. Finally, he submitted that the finding recorded by the first respondent that the petitioner had committed irregularities in the distribution of essential commodities to the public, is totally erroneous.