Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
K. Radhakrishna Naidu vs Director Of Civil Supplies, Hyderabad ... on 16 November, 1995
Equivalent citations: AIR1996AP185, AIR 1996 ANDHRA PRADESH 185, (1996) 1 ANDHLD 473, (1996) 1 LS 456, (1998) 3 ANDHWR 129
ORDER
The petitioner is challenging the proceedings of the first respondent-Director of Civil Supplies, Hyderabad in C.C.S. Reference No. E2/815/1990, dated 3-1-1991 confirming the order of the second respondent dated 5-10-1990 cancelling the licence issued to the petitioner under the provisions of A. P. Petroleum Products Order, 1980.
2. The petitioner has a chequered career. The licence issued to the petitioner was cancelled by the second respondent by proceedings dated 12-7-1990. The cancellation took place in pursuance of a show-cause notice issued by the second respondent basing on the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Gali-veedu. On the basis of a report submitted by the said officer i.e. the Mandai Revenue Officer dated 23-3-1990, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the second respondent on 31-3-1990, for which the petitioner submitted his explanation on 11-4-1990. However, the second respondent passed the orders of cancellation on 12-7-1990. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondeht-appellate authority. The first respondent by the orders dated 7-8-1990 allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner and remanded the matter to the second respondent to dispose of the matter keeping in view the provisions of clause 28 of the A. P. Petroleum Order 1980 and after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to represent his case. Consequent on the remand order, the second respondent issued a show-cause notice dated 1-9-1990. The second respondent passed final orders on 5-10-1990 confirming the order of cancellation passed by him on 12-7-1990. Against the said order of cancellation, the petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent and the same was dismissed on 3-1-1991. The said proceedings of the Appellate Authority confirming the orders of the Licencing Authority, are assailed in this writ petition.
3. The matter relates to the irregularities committed fay the petitioner while conducting the business. Six irregularities have been pointed out by the Licensing Authority. Admittedly, the said irregularities were framed by the Licencing Authority on the basis of the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Galiveedu dated 23-3-1990. The principal grievance of the petitioner apart from the merits of the case, is that the primary report, on the basis of which the charges, were framed against the petitioner, has not been furnished to him. Therefore, the proceedings are vitiated by the principles of natural justice, in as much as the petitioner was not given sufficient opportunity to defend his case effectively. Even on merits also, he submits that no case has been made out and the authorities have not properly considered his explanation. On this ground also, the impugned orders shall have to be set aside.
4. The third ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been conducting the business from 1963 and there has been no complaint whatsoever except the present cancellation. Thus, the impugned action virtually denies his livelihood. The learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies submits that in as much as the charges are proved against the petitioner and the first respondent having remanded the matter for giving an opportunity, the second respondent has complied with the directions of the Appellant-authority. He was issued with a show-cause notice on 1-9-1990 and the petitioner was heard on 5-9-1990. Since no new points have been brought to the notice of the second respondent, the petitioner was found guilty of the charges and accordingly, the earlier order of cancellation passed by the him, was confirmed. Thus, the learned Government Pleader submits that the requirement of Clause 28 of the A.P. Petrolem Order, 1980 has been complied with.
5. For proper appreciation of the case, it ts necessary to consider the effect of Clause 28 of the said order. Clause 28 of the A.P. Petroleum Order, 1990 reads as follows:--
"No holder of a licence or registration certificate or supply card issued under this order or his agent or servant or any other person, acting on his behalf shall contravene, attempt or abet the contravention of any of the provisions of this order or any of the conditions of the licence, registration certificate or any directions issued thereunder if any such holder or his agent or the servant or any person acting on his behalf contravenes any of the said terms or conditions may be cancelled or supended for such period as may be specified by an order in writing by the licensing authority."
Provided that no order shall be made under this clause unless the licensee or the holder of registration certificate has been given a reasonable opportunity for representing his case in writing and also having heard in person against the proposed cancellation;
(2) pending action as in sub-clause (i) above, Licensing authority for reasons to be recorded in writing order of interim suspension of the licence, registration certificate or supply card."
6. Therefore, under Proviso to Rule 28(0, it contained two limbs, firstly being the reasonable opportunity for representing his case in writing and secondly, for hearing in person. For representing the case before the authorities, a reasonable opportunity is contemplated in first limb of the proviso. The reasonable opportunity should be real and effective. Simply because the petitioner has submitted his explanation, it does not fulfil the requirement of reasonable opportunity. When the charges were framed basing on the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Galiveedu, the report itself forms the basic document and the said document is required to be given to the petitioner so as to enable the petitioner to effectively defend his case. The fact that the same was also mentioned in the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner, would clearly indicate that the basis for the show-cause notice is the only report. In the absence' of furnishing such a report, the affording reasonable opportunity would become only illusory. Even in the writ petition, the petitioner has specifically averred that the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer has not been furnished to him and therefore, he was not afforded a reasonable opportunity. To that, no specific averment was made in the counter filed on behalf of the respondents except stating that the petitioner was personally heard on 24-9-1990. It is not in dispute that the personal hearing was given, but the requirement of reasonable opportunity is also to be complied with in the same provision. The furnishing of necessary material which was made as a base for issuing the show-cause notice would form part of fundamental requirement of reasonable opportunity. Without frunishing such a document, asking the explanation of the petitioner would be nothing but empty ritual.
7. Under these circumstances, I am inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not afforded reasonable opportunity to defend his case in as much as the report of the, Mandal Revenue Officer was not furnished to him. This aspect was not considered by the second respondent who passed the orders of cancellation. Therefore, I am inclined to allow the writ petition on the ground of violation of provisions of Clause 28 of the A.P. Petroleum Products Order, 1980.
8. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed and accordingly, the orders of the first respondent dated 3-1-1991 and the second respondent dated 5-10-1990, are hereby quashed. No costs.
9. Petition allowed.