O R D E R :
1. The writ petitioner was appointed as a fair price shop dealer for S. Lingamdinne Village, Gonegandla Mandal, Kurnool District, after due selection. His authorization was renewed from time to time. It is stated that he has been distributing the essential commodities, strictly in accordance with the provisions subject to which the authorization was accorded to him. It is averred that when lands belonging to the local temple are sought to be utilized for construction of a water tank, in spite of availability of other alternative lands, he opposed the said move, which, in turn, brought forth criminal cases booked against him, at the instance of the local Sarpanch. The authorization of the writ petitioner has been suspended initially by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoni on 12.12.2006. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer on 19.03.2008, for which he has filed his reply on 04.04.2008 pleading that he was falsely implicated in the criminal cases and that one case has already ended in his acquittal and the second case is still pending and therefore, his authorization may not be cancelled.
2. However, the Revenue Divisional Officer has passed orders on 29.09.2009 cancelling the authorization of the fair price shop managed by the writ petitioner. He preferred an appeal on 07.12.2009 to the Joint Collector. On 09.07.2010, the matter was heard by the Joint Collector and in spite of the counsel for the writ petitioner bringing to his notice the fact that the second case was also ended in acquittal and that the petitioner has already submitted an application for renewing his authorization, the appeal was dismissed. Against the said orders, a revision was preferred on 21.07.2010 to the Collector and District Magistrate, Kurnool. Ultimately, the said revision was dismissed by the order passed on 12.10.2010 by the District Collector.
3. Challenging the validity of these orders, the present Writ Petition is instituted. It will be appropriate to notice that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoni, through his order dated 29.09.2009, while cancelling the authorization of the writ petitioner, has rested his conclusion on the ground that the cases that are booked against the writ petitioner before the competent criminal Courts are grave in nature and that the authorization granted in favour of the writ petitioner was valid only up to 31.03.2008 and he has not applied for subsequent renewal.
4. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that challans were paid seeking extension/renewal of his authorization, but without any regard therefor, the Revenue Divisional Officer has concluded as if the writ petitioner has not sought for any renewal. It will also be appropriate to notice that the authorization of the writ petitioner has been initially suspended by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoni on 12.12.2006 and in his final order dated 29.09.2009, he has noticed that the authorization has been renewed up to 31.03.2008. Therefore, until the Revenue Divisional Officer finalizes the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the writ petitioner one way or the other, the question of renewal of his authorization would not have, in normal circumstances, arisen.
5. When once the Revenue Divisional Officer finalized the disciplinary proceedings on 29.09.2009 cancelling the authorization, the question of renewing the authorization any further thereafter would not arise. The Joint Collector, in his order dated 14.07.2010, while dismissing the appeal preferred by the writ petitioner, has rested his conclusions on the factual backdrop, which has led to institution of criminal cases against the writ petitioner.
6. The Collector, in his order, dated 12.10.2010, has once again rested his conclusions only on the background facts, which led to the initiation of the criminal cases against the writ petitioner and non-renewal of the authorization of the writ petitioner beyond 31.03.2008. Heard Sri K. Rajanna, learned counsel for the writ petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. Sri Rajanna, learned counsel would contend that in accordance with Clause 5(5) of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008, the appointing authority has power to amend, vary, suspend or cancel the authorization issued in favour of a fair price shop dealer, after conducting an enquiry and for reasons to be recorded in writing.
7. It is thus manifestly clear that reasons have got to be assigned for cancellation of the authorization. Against any such order, in terms of Clause 20 of the said Order, an appeal would lie to the Joint Collector/Collector (Civil Supplies). A further revision would lie to the District Collector under Clause 21 of the same Order. The primary authority, who passed an order of cancellation of the authorization, as well as the appellate and revisional authorities are, undoubtedly, required to assign reasons for the conclusions reached by them. This apart, Clause 5(7) of the 2008 Order empowers the appointing authority to cancel the authorization of a fair price shop dealer/nominated retailer/hawker, who has been convicted by a Court of law in respect of contravention of any order passed under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, but however, the proviso added there under would clearly disclose that if such conviction is set aside in any appeal or revision, the appointing authority may, on application in Form I made by the person, whose authorization has been cancelled, re-issue the authorization to such a person.
8. Sri K. Rajanna, therefore, contends that it is not mere pendency of the criminal cases what is material for cancellation of the authorization, but the conviction. In the instant case, the writ petitioner has not been booked for any offence committed by him for contravention of the provisions of any Order issued in terms of Section 3 of the 1955 Act. On the other hand, under ordinary criminal law, he has been subjected to prosecution and even those two cases have failed to secure any conviction to the writ petitioner. Hence, the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, as confirmed by the Joint Collector and the District Collector, are liable to be set aside. It is hardly in doubt that the writ petitioner has been proceeded against for the offences under Sections 148, 307, 324 read with 34 I.P.C. in S.C.No. 287 of 2007, whereas in C.C.No. 311 of 2006, he has been proceeded against for the offences under Sections 143, 341 and 506 I.P.C. Both the cases have ended in acquittal of the writ petitioner. C.C.No. 311 of 2006 was decided on 26.10.2007 while S.C.No. 287 of 2007 ended in his acquittal on 07.05.2010. In both the cases, the prosecution carried out by the State has failed to bring home the charge laid against the writ petitioner.
9. The petitioner was acquitted not for any technical reasons, but on merits in both the cases. Therefore, the gravity of mere allegations should not have weighed with the Revenue Divisional Officer/Joint Collector/District Collector in proceeding against the writ petitioner. However grave the allegations might be, the failure to bring home the charge laid against the writ petitioner is what is relevant. We have already noticed that Clause 5(5) requires the appointing authority to assign reasons. Reasons bring forth not only transparency but also clarity to the process of application of mind by the competent authority.
10. It is profitable to recall the principles of law in this regard, as enunciated by the Supreme Court in M.P. Sugar Mills Co. (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax1. By the very nature of requirement of law to assign the reasons, an element of fairness is assured to the person against whom the State is proceeding. All relevant facts only are required to be taken into account and consideration. All irrelevant factors are required to be eschewed from the zone of consideration. It is not open for any extraneous considerations to weigh with the decision- making authority. In a judicial review exercise, I am not actually concerned with the decision per se, but I am actually concerned with the decision-making process. When all relevant material alone has been taken into account or consideration and no irrelevant material has got into the decision-making process, the ultimate decision insulates itself against an external assault.
11. On the contrary, if relevant considerations have been omitted and irrelevant considerations weigh with the decision-maker, such a process can be declared as vitiated. In the instant case, the authorities are concerned with the gravity of the charges laid against the writ petitioner in the criminal Courts. They have failed to apply their mind as to whether the writ petitioner has been acquitted of such charges on merits or not. In the absence of any specific proviso, which enables the competent authority to take into account and consideration the conduct of the petitioner towards the cardholders, which may have played a part in his facing the prosecution, action of the respondents in getting guided by such allegations is hopelessly impermissible.
12. If the allegations behind the criminal cases were still to play a part in the entire exercise, the fact that the writ petitioner has been acquitted of such charges ultimately before the criminal Court loses its importance. Failure to bring home the charges laid against an individual by the State not only secures an acquittal but one is entitled to feel free that no further penal action would follow there from For these reasons, I find that the impugned orders are unsustainable. Therefore, they are accordingly set aside.
13. The matter is remanded back to the Revenue Divisional Officer for consideration afresh and for passing appropriate orders on merits within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With this, the Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs.