V.V. Mahalinga Nadar vs The Assistant Commissioner of Civil Supplies, Madras-1 and others

Venugopal, J.—The appellant is a wholesale rice miller in paddy and rice holding a licence under the Tamil Nadu Paddy and Rice

(Regulation of Trade) Order, 1974. Respondents 1 and 2 inspected the appellant''s rice mill on 26th November, 1977. There was difference in the

stock as per stock book and as per physical verification. The account books and bill books were not produced. The officers were not satisfied

with the genuineness of the account books which were subsequently produced. A show cause notice was issued for forfeiture of the security

deposit and cancellation of the licence. The appellant was given an opportunity to submit his explanation. After considering the explanation, the

Assistant Commissioner, Civil Supplies, by his order, dt. 7th December, 1977, directed forfeiture of the security amount and cancellation of the

licence. There was an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner of Civil Supplies and on the dismissal of the appeal, there was a further revision to the

Commissioner of Civil Supplies and that too was dismissed. A writ petition was filed challenging the order of the Assistant Commissioner, dt. 7th

December, 1977. The learned single Judge of this Court held that the authorities have considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case

and come to the conclusion that the appellant is guilty of the charges levelled against him and no ground for interference has been made out by the

appellant. Against the order of the single Judge, the present writ appeal has been filed by the appellant in this Court. The learned counsel for the

appellant contended that in spite of request by the appellant to furnish certain statements given by third parties to the third respondent and the

statement of one Munuswami, relied on by the first respondent in his order, those statements were not furnished to him and as the impugned order

passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Civil Supplies was in violation of the principles of natural justice, it has to be set aside. Relying on the

decisions of the Supreme Court in S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan and others AIR 1980 S.C. 136 , and the decision of the Calcutta High Court

reported in Balkissen Kejriwal v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta and another AIR 1362 Cal. 460 , the learned counsel for the appellant

contended that even in cases where facts are admitted, principles of natural justice have to be observed and independent proof of prejudice is not

necessary as non-observance of natural justice is itself prejudice to the person concerned, and as the statements recorded have not been furnished

to the appellant, the opportunity given to meet the charges levelled against the appellant is neither fair nor reasonable and the impugned order is

hence liable to be set aside on the ground that it has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.

In S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan and others AIR 1980 S.C. 136, it has been pointed out that the person proceeded against must know that he is

being required to meet the allegations which might lead to a certain action being taken against him and if that is made known, the requirements of

the principles of natural justice are met with. The essential requirement of natural justice is fair hearing and fair hearing connotes that an opportunity

to be heard must be given and that opportunity must be reasonable and both these matters are justiciable. In other words, whether a person has

had a fair hearing or not can be gone into by the court and the court''s conscience must be satisfied that nothing unfair has been done in the matter.

In the instant case, the appellant was given adequate opportunity to explain the five charges levelled against him. The allegations on the basis of

which the charges were levelled against the appellant and the action proposed to be taken against him were made known to the appellant and he

was given an opportunity to submit his explanation. There was difference in the stock as per the stock book and as per physical verification. The

bill books were not immediately produced. They were produced later and that too, not from the mill premises. The bill books produced showed

five entries of sale. The bills under items 1 and 2 did not facilitate verification. The person noted in the bill under item 3 denied having purchased

any paddy from the appellant. With regard to the bills referred to under items 4 and 5, the names were found to be fictitious. The plea of the

appellant that he sold 130 bags of paddy to five different parties was not proved by the bills produced by him. It was in those circumstances, that

the Assistant Commissioner of Civil Supplies passed the impugned order. The facts and circumstances of the case do not establish that there has

been violation of any principles of natural justice. On the facts of the case, we are satisfied that the appellant has had a fair hearing before the

impugned order was passed and there was no violation of the principles of natural justice. We, therefore, see no reason to entertain the appeal and

it is accordingly dismissed.