K. Vishawanath vs State of Karnataka, The Commissioner and Director For Food and Civil Supplies, No. 1, Cunningham Road and The Deputy Commissioner, The Officer Under Food and Civil Supplies, Tumkur District

A.S. Bopanna, J.—Learned Government Advocate to accept notice for respondents No. 1 to 3 and file memo of appearance in four weeks. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the orders dated 29.07.2013 (Annexure-B) and 01.08.2013 (Annexure-C) to the petition. Further, the petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 28.08.2013 at Annexure-E to the petition.

The brief facts are that the petitioner has been granted authorization by the order dated 24.07.1994 to open a fair price Depot at Jyothinagar, Shira Town, Tumkur District. The petitioner has been allotted 475 BPL card holders and 3 antyodaya and as such 478 cards are assigned to the petitioner. On the ground that the petitioner had committed certain irregularities in the distribution of essential commodities, the Deputy Commissioner has passed the order dated 29.07.2013 and 01.08.2013, whereby pending enquiry, the authorization issued in favour of the petitioner is suspended and alternate arrangement has been made for distribution of essential commodities.

The petitioner though had assailed the same before this Court in W.P. No. 37737/2013, he had withdrawn the same on 26.08.2013 since Para 17 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1992 provides for an appeal. Pursuant thereto, the appeal in No. 36/13-14 had been filed before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority instead of deciding the grievance put forth by the petitioner on merits has disposed of the appeal without entertaining the same by the order dated 28.08.2013, but has indicated that the Deputy Commissioner would hold the enquiry within a period of 60 days and if such enquiry is not completed, thereafter the petitioner would be entitled to re-approach the Appellate Authority.

Having heard the learned counsel, I am of the opinion that to the extent of Appellate Authority having disposed of the appeal in such manner it was not justified, since the appeal should have been entertained and a finding should have been rendered by the Appellate Authority as to whether the suspension, pending enquiry was justified in the instant facts or not When such an error has been committed by the Appellate Authority, in a normal circumstance, this Court would have set aside the order and would have remitted the matter to the Appellate Authority to restore and reconsider the same in accordance with law. In the instant case, if such a procedure is adopted, in my opinion, it would only delay the process further which would also not be in the interest of the petitioner as the enquiry pending before the Deputy Commissioner would remain inconclusive till the appeal is decided once-over again.

Therefore, keeping these aspects in view, I am of the opinion that the appropriate course to be adopted in the instant case would be to accept the observations made by the Appellate Authority that the Deputy Commissioner would complete the enquiry within a time frame. However, I find that the time frame of 60 days which has been indicated is too long period if the suspension is kept in force. Therefore, a direction is issued to the authorized authority namely, the Deputy Commissioner to conclude the enquiry within 30 days from the date of submission of a copy of this order.

Further, since the petitioner contends that the alleged irregularities has not been committed in the main shop of the petitioner and the suspension has affected the petitioner, in that regard, if any modification of the order of the Deputy Commissioner is required, it is open for the petitioner to seek for the same before the Deputy Commissioner who may also consider the same in accordance with law. In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of.