M.Y. Mullur vs The State of Karnataka

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate.

The petitioner is said to be running a fair price depot under the authorisation of Respondent No. 3. The authorisation pertains to Huvinahalli Village in Hungund Taluk, Bagalkot District. In addition to this, he was authorised to distribute essential commodities under the Food Control Order in respect of two additional villages, namely Ramathal and Mullur. It is alleged that there were certain irregularities which were discovered in the distribution of goods to card holders by the petitioner in respect of Mullur village. Respondent No. 3 had immediately issued a show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why his licence in respect of Mullur ought not to be suspended. However, on considering the circumstance that the petitioner had made a voluntary statement admitting irregularities, the authority had proceeded to cancel the entire authorisation pertaining to all the three villages aforesaid. On an appeal against the order withdrawing the authorisation, the Appellate Authority - Respondent No. 2 is said to have confirmed the order passed by Respondent No. 3 mechanically. It is in this background that the present petition is filed.

Though the learned Government Advocate who has "secured the records would seek to demonstrate that there was a full-fledged hearing not only in the first instance, but also in the second instance where an appeal had been filed against withdrawal of the authorisation and hence there is no substance in the present petition. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that even from a perusal of the record, it is evident that there was short-circuiting of the proceedings, as is evident from the fact that though show cause notice was issued in the first instance and the petitioner not only had replied to the notice, but was also afforded an opportunity of hearing before passing of the order, it is the case of the counsel for the petitioner that pressure was brought on the petitioner to give in writing certain alleged admissions of irregularities committed by him and it is on the assurance that if he made such admissions and undertook not to repeat the same, he would be excused of any such irregularity and he was thus compelled to give statements in writing as if he had committed irregularities, when in fact there were none.

Though this aspect of the matter cannot be readily accepted, the question remains whether the authority who was to decide on the allegations made by the petitioner has not alluded to the same and has not enquired whether indeed there was any such pressure brought on the petitioner in making such admissions and whether the authority could act on the basis of such admissions. For otherwise, the petitioner had a clean record over the years, in the circumstance that he was entrusted with distribution pertaining to three villages, which would indicate that there were no earlier instances of irregularities.

If that be so, having regard to the track record of the petitioner, the alleged admissions made by him in writing do appear to be obtained under duress, as claimed by the petitioner. Therefore, there is no injustice caused if the authorities should take a re-look into the matter and ensure that there was no compulsion of the petitioner to execute such documents which were self-defeating. Keeping that in view, Respondent No. 3 is directed to rehear the petitioner and consider his case afresh.

Having regard to the fact that some time has elapsed in the petitioner''s authorisation pertaining to three villages having been withdrawn, the hearing may be expedited and completed within a period of eight weeks if not earlier, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.