SHAHEEN PARVEEN Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No. 3 in canceling the petitioner's authorization in respect of fair-price-shop No. 21 of Emboora Village, Madnoor Mandal of Nizamabad District vide proceedings No. A1/2499/2012 dated 10.07.2012, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Mr. D. Linga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

(2.) The petitioner's authorization was suspended by respondent No. 4 by his order dated 10.07.2012 on the allegation that she has been circulating 13 Nos. of white bogus cards and misappropriating the rice quota under the said cards from the year 2008. The petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No. 2 against the said order. Respondent No. 2 has allowed the said appeal and set aside the order of suspension. Feeling aggrieved by the same, respondent Nos. 5 and 6 filed a revision petition before the District Collector, Nizamabad who vide his order dated 10.05.2011, while declining to interfere with the order of the appellate authority, however, directed respondent No. 4 to make a thorough enquiry into all the allegations made by respondent Nos. 5 and 6 against the petitioner and pass an appropriate order within three months from the date of issue of the order. Thereafter, respondent No. 3 passed the impugned order whereby he has cancelled the authorization of the petitioner.

(3.) A perusal of the impugned order would show that it is bereft of any reasons. Under Clause 5 (5) of the A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008, it is incumbent upon respondent No. 3 to hold an enquiry before an order of cancellation is passed. In his order, he has merely stated that a notice was issued to all the concerned with a request to attend the enquiry on 09.09.2011 and observed that the allegations leveled against the petitioner have been proved. This approach of respondent No. 3 is thoroughly unsatisfactory, to say the least. He did not mention in his order whether the parties attended the enquiry on 09.09.2011 and, if so, whether any enquiry was held. He also failed to discuss the merits of the allegations and the evidence, if any, in support thereof against the petitioner. The cryptic and laconic order passed by respondent No. 3 cannot pass judicial muster, because by canceling the authorization of the petitioner, respondent No. 3 is visiting the petitioner with the penalty of cancellation of her fair-price-shop authorization. The Law is well settled that before any order, which results in adverse civil consequences to a person, is passed, he shall be given proper opportunity of putting forth his case and a speaking order shall be passed by the authority concerned. As respondent No. 3 has miserably failed to follow this procedure, which is the bedrock of the principles of natural justice, the impugned order cannot be sustained and, accordingly, the same is set aside. The petitioner shall be permitted to continue as the fair-price-shop dealer, till a full-fledged enquiry is held by respondent No. 3 and a detailed speaking order is passed in the event he finds the allegations against the petitioner proved in the enquiry.