GUNDALA RAMA MURTHY Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR VIZIANAGARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner whose authorisation to run Fair Price Shop No.1 of Sundarada Village was cancelled by the 3rd respondent by an order dated 24-9-1993, has filed this Writ Petition seeking for a declaration that the notification dated 4-11-1993 issued by the 3rd respondent inviting applications from the Women Candidates for the same Fair Price Shop during the pendency of the revision petition filed before the 1 st respondent as illegal and arbitrary.

(2.) The authorisation was cancelled on the sole ground that an order under Sec. 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act was passed by the Joint Collector on 27-3-1993 confiscating the seized stock. The appeal filed against the said order was summarily rejected by the Joint Collector by an order dated 3-11-1993 stating that "Sec. 6-A case against him was proved". A revision has been filed against the said order before the District Collector on 9-12-1993 and the same is pending. It appears that the District Collector, has not passed any order on the stay application. Soon after the dismissal of the appeal by the Joint Collector, the 3rd respondent (Joint Collector) issued a notification calling for applications from women candidates to fill up the vacancy of the Fair Price Shop. It is under these circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) In my view, the primary authority as well as the appellate authority have not adopted the correct approach to the legal issue. It is to be remembered that the proceedings under the Essential Commodities Act are quite distinct and different from the proceedings under the A.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (RDCS) Order. The authority which is competent to exercise power under Sec. 6-A and the authority empowered to cancel or suspend the authorisation under Clause 3(4) of the Control Order are also different. Respondents 2 and 3 evidently felt that passing of an order under Sec. 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act should automatically result in cancellation of the authorisation. But as I have already stated, this is a wrong approach to the problem. The authority exercising the power under the A.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (RDCS) Order shall take an independent decision after considering the relevant facts and after giving due opportunity of making representation to the petitioner and then only pass an order under Clause 3(4). That the principles of natural justice apply eventhough Clause 3(4) of the Control Order does not specifically say so, cannot be doubted. In the present case, no show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner framing charges and the petitioner was never called upon to submit his explanation. As already stated, the sole ground for the cancellation of authorisation and for dismissal of the appeal is that confiscation of the seized goods was ordered under Sec. 6-A. This cannot form the sole basis for passing an order under Clause 3(4) of the Control Order. It may be, the competent authority can take into account the relevant material as disclosed from Sec. 6-A proceedings, and propose to rely on them In the show-cause notice. But as I have already held It is the satisfaction of the authority exercising power under Clause 3(4) of the Control Order that is material but not the satisfaction reached in the course of the proceedings under Sec. 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act. The findings in the proceedings under the Essential Commodities Act may, at the most, be relevant but not binding on the authority exercising the power under Clause 3(4) of Control Order. In a case of suspension of authorisation pending enquiry under Sec. 6-A, I have clarified the legal position in P. Hanumantha Rao vs. Chief Rationing Officer (1) 1993 (3) ALT 443 as follows :