UNEENKU FY Vs. TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER ERNAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner challenges the Taluk Supply Officer's authority to suspend temporarily, pending enquiry, his authorised retail distributorship, except after affording him an opportunity to be heard. Clause.45(8) of the Kerala Foodgrains Dealers' Licensing order, 1967 empowers the District Collector or any officer of the Civil Supplies Department not below the rank of a Taluk Supply Officer to vary, suspend or cancel the appointment of such an authorised distributor after giving him an opportunity of stating his case and for reasons to be recorded in writing. These requirements are not however attached to the power conferred by the very same sub clause to pass an order of temporary suspension, for that provision merely enacts: "If considered necessary he may suspend the appointment of the authorised retail distributor temporarily pending enquiry." The terms of the two provisions are significantly different; so is their object. The former is the final substantive punishment and hence the provision, for the giving of opportunity and the recording of reasons. The latter is only a temporary proceeding as a prelude to the final order and that accounts for the absence of the safeguards of the final proceeding. Counsel's argument that these safeguards should nevertheless be implied in the temporary order is without force; for the law does not provide for them and the inherent nature of the proceeding does not attract them as a matter of course. The contention that the order of temporary suspension is bad for violating natural justice must therefore fail. The order also shows that the Taluk Supply Officer had prima facie ample materials for the action he took.