AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 02.03.2013 passed by the second respondent and the order dated 31.10.2012 passed by the third respondent, impugned at Annexures-E and D to the petition. The petitioner was issued the authorisation to disburse the essential commodities at Thirumani village, Pavagada Taluk. The authorisation was issued to the petitioner in No. 70/98-99. When this was the position, the fourth respondent along with the Food Inspector is stated to have visited the village on 07.03.2012 and at that point, some villagers had complained to the fourth respondent that the petitioner is charging more than the prescribed amount. The fourth respondent has thereafter by a letter dated 12.03.2012 informed the third respondent to take necessary action against the petitioner under the Essential Commodities Act. Pursuant thereto, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 16.07.2012 and the proceedings were held by the Deputy Commissioner. At the first instance, the authorisation issued in favour of the petitioner had been suspended and the enquiry was proposed. The petitioner had challenged the same and the Appellate Authority having set aside the said order had directed the Deputy Commissioner to conclude the proceedings on the allegations which had been made against the petitioner. Subsequent thereto, the order dated 31.10.2012 was passed by the Deputy Commissioner alleging that the petitioner had violated the terms of authorisation and the same was ordered to be cancelled. The petitioner had filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority by the order dated 02.03.2013 has upheld the order of the Deputy Commissioner. The petitioner therefore is before this Court.
Having considered the rival contentions and having secured the original file maintained by the authorities, a perusal of the show cause notice would indicate that the allegations made against the petitioner were with regard to the short delivery of the essential commodities to the cardholders, excess amount being charged from the cardholders and also that the board required to be displayed as per the Regulation had not been displayed. The petitioner had issued his reply to the show cause notice. The Deputy Commissioner while considering the rival contentions, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner has at the outset referred to the two reports submitted by the Tahsildar and both being dated 23.01.2012. By the first report, it has been indicated that the allegations made against the petitioner is not true, while in the second report, the allegations as made by the cardholders have been referred to and the discrepancies is held to be existing. It is in that circumstance, the Deputy Commissioner has thereafter proceeded to consider the matter. In order to ascertain as to whether in fact there were two reports, the records were perused.
The first report dated 23.01.2012 is available at page No. 43 while the second report of the same date is available at page No. 63. In fact, this aspect goes to the root of the matter in the instant case. The entire proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner is based on the allegations said to have been made by certain cardholders pursuant to which the fourth respondent-Tahsildar has made a report to the Deputy Commissioner and it is in that context, the proceedings have been taken up by the Deputy Commissioner. From the perusal of the proceedings, it is seen that there is no other contrary material to indicate that the first report dated 23.01.2012 by which the fourth respondent-Tahsildar had come to the conclusion that the allegations made against the petitioner is not true has been discarded for any other reasons. In fact, a perusal of the discussion made by the Deputy Commissioner in the impugned order dated 31.10.2012 would disclose that the Deputy Commissioner after taking into consideration both the reports has chosen to ignore the first report dated 23.01.2012 without reasons, wherein the Tahsildar has stated that the allegations are false but has only proceeded to take into consideration the subsequent report.
In such circumstance, though there were two reports, contrary to one another, the manner in which one of the reports which was beneficial to the petitioner has been ignored is not appropriate. In such circumstance, the Deputy Commissioner should have required the fourth respondent-Tahsildar who was the complainant to independently establish the allegations made against the petitioner since in any event, the fourth respondent had taken steps to make the report based on certain allegations said to have been made by some of the cardholders by submitting a representation when he along with the Food Inspector had visited the village. Therefore, if the charges alleged which was based on the complaint of the cardholders was to be established, in a normal circumstance, when the Tahsildar had submitted two reports, atleast the Deputy Commissioner should have required the examination of the cardholders with regard to the allegations. In any event, with regard to the allegation that the petitioner was charging more than the rate fixed by the Government, it has been held that the same was not established. The issue which remained was with regard to the manner in which the entries were made in the records maintained in the Fair Price Depot and the entries made in the cards of the cardholders to come to a conclusion as to whether the entries had tallied with each other or was there short delivery? Even with regard to the same, the Deputy Commissioner though has made reference to the same, this should be looked at from the point where the Tahsildar at the first instance had stated that the allegations were not true.
Furthermore, the allegation with regard to the petitioner having not displayed an appropriate board, the findings rendered by the Deputy Commissioner appears to be contrary to one another. Firstly, it is alleged that such board was not available. The petitioner had produced the photographs to indicate that the board had been displayed in the Fair Price Depot. The Deputy Commissioner has discarded the same by assuming that the photograph has been subsequently taken and produced and therefore, the same cannot be relied on. Such conclusion could have been arrived at only if there was a photograph which was available on record as produced by the Tahsildar to indicate the position as it existed at the time of inspection that such board was not available and the photograph had been taken subsequently.
Therefore, in the present facts, keeping in view the nature of the allegations made and there being two contrary reports from the Tahsildar, the appropriate course during the enquiry as noticed should have been either to examine certain cardholders though it was a summary trial or to hold the spot inspection with regard to the allegations relating to the existence or otherwise of the board and thereafter a conclusion should have been reached. In such circumstance, when the Deputy Commissioner has proceeded even with regard to the nature of the indication with reference to the bill books and the entries made therein, the finding does not appear to be conclusive, but certain assumptions had been drawn and thereafter a conclusion has been reached. In fact, the reading of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in its entirety would disclose that the findings on certain observations made therein are contrary to one another.
Therefore, the manner in which the proceedings has been held itself would indicate that the conclusion reached is not based on subjective satisfaction based on the materials that were available on record and more particularly, in a circumstance where I have noticed that the very nature of the proceedings has not been held in an appropriate manner when there were contrary findings. The order more particularly when the operative portion is mainly stating about violation of Rule 8 has been reached, the same cannot be sustained. When the petitioner was before the Appellate Authority, these aspects of the matter should have been looked into by the Appellate Authority and even while re-appreciating the materials, an appropriate enquiry could have been held by the Appellate Authority. Therefore, for the said reasons, the orders impugned would not be sustainable.
Though having arrived at the conclusion that the Deputy Commissioner was not justified in the manner of the conclusion reached, since I have referred to the irregularities committed in the proceedings and more particularly, in a circumstance when the reports were there, the matter in any event would have to be reconsidered by the Deputy Commissioner after providing appropriate opportunity to the parties. The reconsideration and the conclusion shall however be made within a time frame.
For the reasons stated above, the order dated 31.10.2012 and the order dated 02.03.2013 are quashed. The matter stands remitted to the Deputy Commissioner to reconsider the matter afresh after providing opportunity to the parties and holding an appropriate proceedings in that regard. The petitioner shall appear before the Deputy Commissioner on 10.02.2014 as the first date of appearance and the proceedings shall be concluded within a period of three months thereafter. Until the proceedings are concluded by the Deputy Commissioner, the arrangement existing as on today shall continue to subsist.
The petition stands disposed of accordingly.