P. Viswanath vs Joint Collector Anantapur and Others

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.—Petitioner is the dealer of a fair price shop of Shop No.2 of Gariadinna Village and Mandal, Anantapur District. Through proceedings, dated 5-1-2005, the 2nd respondent suspended the authorization of the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner filed an appeal before the 1st respondent. He also filed an application for interim orders. Through his order, dated 12-1-2005, the 1st respondent rejected the application for stay. Hence, this writ petition.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the 2nd respondent suffers from error apparent on the face of the record. He contends that though the petitioner engaged an advocate and submitted explanation on 13-12-2004 after receiving the show-cause notice, the 2nd respondent proceeded as though the explanation was not submitted at all. He contends that though a specific plea was raised before the 1st respondent, in this regard, it was not taken into account.

Learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, on the other hand, submits that the question as to whether the petitioner submitted explanation within time, needs to be considered at the hearing of the appeal and no exception can be taken to the impugned proceedings.

Petitioner preferred an appeal against the proceedings, dated 5-1-2005, of the 2nd respondent suspending the authorization. The application filed by him for grant of stay was rejected with an observation that ''there are no compelling grounds''. It is true that the 1st respondent is not expected to pass a detailed or reasoned order while considering the application for grant of stay. However, a perusal of the order should indicate that there was proper application of mind to the facts of the case. Otherwise the exercise of power becomes redundant.

Petitioner was issued a show-cause notice, dated 8-12-2004, wherein he was directed to submit explanation as to why the authorization shall not be cancelled in view of the charges contained therein. Petitioner states that soon after receipt of show-cause notice, he engaged an advocate and submitted explanation on 13-12-2004.

A perusal of the proceedings of the 2nd respondent discloses that the authorization of the petitioner was suspended, on the sole ground that the petitioner failed to submit explanation to the show-cause notice. Petitioner filed a copy of the explanation submitted by him through his advocate before the 2nd respondent. It contains the seal of the office of the 2nd respondent with the date of 13-12-2004. The learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies was granted time to ascertain the correctness of the endorsement as well as seal. On receiving instructions, he submits that the explanation was submitted on 13-12-2004, in the office, but the same was not brought to the notice of the 2nd respondent by the time the impugned order was passed.

The record discloses that the petitioner submitted explanation on 13-12-2004. Therefore, the very basis of the order of suspension, dated 5-1-2005, namely, that the petitioner did not submit explanation, disappears. Therefore, it turns out to be a case of non-application of mind. On this ground alone, the writ petition is allowed and the proceedings, dated 5-1-2005, issued by the 2nd respondent, are set aside. In view of this, the appeal, which is now pending before the 1st respondent becomes superfluous and he need not pass any orders therein. It shall be open to the 2nd respondent to pass fresh orders after taking into account the explanation submitted by the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.