:
1. : ® IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE5T H DAY OF JANUARY, 2015 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.VENUGOPALA GOWDA WRIT PETITION No.75045 OF2013[GM-PDS]. BETWEEN SRI. S.V. PATIL S/O. VITTAL PATIL AGED ABOUT:
42. YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS R/O. KUDREMANI TALUK, DIST: BELGAUM. (BY SRI: SUNIL S DESAI, ADV.) ... PETITIONER AND1 THE COMMISSIONER & APPELLATE AUTHORITY OF FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES & DEPT. OF COUNSUMER AFFAIRS,CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (FOOD) BELGAUM :
2. :
3. JAI HANUMAN YUVAK SANGHA, SHOP NO.107, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT ARJUN S/O NAGAPPA PANNALAKAR, AGE:
60. YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS/AGRICULTURE, R/O MARUTI GALLI, KUDREMANI, TQ: & DIST: BELGAUM. AMENDED AS PER COURT ORDER
DATED:
19. 08.2013 (BY SMT: K. VIDYAVATI, AGA. FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI: R.M. KULKARNI, ADV. FOR R-3) ... RESPONDENTS2804.2012 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226& 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
OF SUSPENSION2N D DATED RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER
C.F.S. APPEAL NO.21/2012-13 DTD.29.11.2012 PASSED BY THE1S T RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-C AS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND VOID, ETC. PASSED BY THE THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - ORDER
The petitioner, physically challenged person, had the authorisation issued under the Karnataka Essential Commodities (PDS) Control Order, 1992 (for short, ‘the Control Order’), to run a fair price depot at Kudrimani Village, Taluk & District, Belgaum. Said authorisation :
3. : having been suspended on 28.04.2012 vide Annexure-A, by respondent No.2, in exercise of the power under sub- clause (2) of Clause 12 of the Control Order, was questioned by filing an appeal before the 1st respondent. By an order dated 23.05.2012, as at Annexure-B, appeal was allowed in part, respondent No.2 was directed to grant reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and decide the matter within a period of 60 days and the interim order granted earlier, staying the operation of order of suspension was continued. 2nd respondent having not decided the appeal within the period allowed and the card holders of the fair price depot having represented, the 1st respondent, vide order dated 29.11.2012, as at Annexure-C, having recalled the order passed on 23.05.2012 and upheld the order dated 28.04.2012 of respondent No.2, this writ petition was filed, to quash the orders as at Annexures – A and C.
2. Sri Sunil S. Desai, learned advocate, contended that the 1st respondent, exercising quasi-judicial power, having decided the appeal, vide order as at :
4. : Annexure-B and the Control Order having not conferred any power of review or recall, has acted arbitrarily and illegally in passing the order, as at Annexure-C. He contended that the impugned order being null and void is liable to be quashed.
3. Smt. K. Vidyavathi, learned AGA and Sri R.M. Kulkarni, learned advocate for respondent No.3, on the other hand submitted that the order as at Annexure-A having merged in the order as at Annexure-B, which was not assailed by the petitioner, there cannot be any challenge to the same in this petition. They made submissions in support of the order as at Annexure-C and sought dismissal of the writ petition.
4. Keeping in view the rival contentions and the record of the case, point for consideration is, whether, Annexure-C is arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction?.
5. Respondent No.2 being the Authorised Authority, under the Control Order, passed the order of suspension, as at Annexure-A. Said order was assailed by :
5. : filing an appeal, under Clause 17 of the Control Order. Respondent No.1, in exercise of the quasi-judicial power, passed the order dated 23.05.2012, as at Annexure-B. Relevant portion thereof reads as follows: DzÉñÀ ªÉÄîä£À« ¨sÁUÀ±ÀB ¥ÀÅgÀ¸ÀÌj¹zÉ. ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß f¯Áè¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, ¨É¼ÀUÁ« f¯Éè, ¨É¼ÀUÁ«gÀªÀjUÉ »A¢gÀÄV¸ÀÄvÁÛ, ¥ÀæPÀgÀtPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÀÉ ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀjUÉ CªÀgÀ ªÁzÀ ªÀÄAr¸À®Ä CªÀPÁ±À ¤Ãr CUÀvÀå zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ, ¥Àj²Ã®£É ªÀiÁr F DzÉñÀ vÀ®Ä¦zÀ 60 ¢£ÀUÀ¼ÉƼÀUÁV ¤AiÀĪÀiÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ DzÉñÀ ºÉÆr¸ÀĪÀAvÉ DzÉò¹vÁÛ, CAwªÀÄ DzÉñÀ ºÉÆgÀr¸ÀĪÀªÀgÉUÀÉ f¯Áè¢üPÁjUÀ¼À ¥Àæ²ßvÀ CªÀiÁ£ÀvÀÛÄ DzÉñÀPÉÌ vÀqÉAiÀiÁeÉè ¤Ãr ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgɹ CzÀgÀAvÉ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß EvÀåxÀð¥Àr¸À®ÁVzÉ. Thereafter, respondent No.1 has passed an order dated 29.11.2012, as at Annexure-C. Relevant portion of thereof reads as follows: ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è PÀÄzÀÄgɪÀĤ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¥ÀrvÀgÀ aÃnzÁgÀgÀ ¥ÀgÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ 26.11.2012 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀQîgÀÄ ºÁdgÁV ªÁzÀ ªÀÄAr¸ÀÄvÁÛ ªÉÆzÀ®£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ B2804.2012 gÀAzÀÄ ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀgÀ £ÁåAiÀi¨É¯É CAUÀr ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß CªÀiÁ£ÀvÀÄÛ¥Àr¹zÀÄÝ, ªÉÄîä£À« ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀªÀÅ ¸ÀzÀj DzÉñÀPÉÌ ¢£ÁAPÀB23.05.2012 gÀAzÀÄ vÀqÉAiÀiÁeÉè ¤Ãr ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ ªÀÄgÀÄ«ZÁgÀuÉ ªÀiÁr 60 ¢£ÀUÀ¼ÉƼÀUÁV CAwªÀÄ DzÉñÀ ºÉÆgÀr¸À®Ä DzÉò¸À¯ÁVvÀÄÛ. DzÀgÉ, ªÉÆzÀ®£É ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ F vÀºÀ¯ï ªÀgÉUÀÆ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà «ZÁgÀuÉ ªÀiÁr CAwªÀÄ DzÉñÀ ºÉÆgÀr¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. EzÀjAzÁV £ÁåAiÀÄ¨É¯É CAUÀr ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÁzÀ ²æà J¸ï.«. ¥Ánïï gÀªÀjAzÀ ¥ÀrvÀgÀ :
6. : aÃnzÁgÀjUÉ AiÀiÁvÀ£ÉAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉAiÉÄAzÀÄ ªÁ¢¹, vÀqÉAiÀiÁeÉèAiÀÄ£ÀÄß »A¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä PÉÆÃjgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ªÉÆzÀ®£É ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ 60 ¢£ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ «ÄÃjzÀgÀÆ, ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ «ZÁgÀuÉ ªÀiÁqÀzÉ CAwªÀÄ DzÉñÀ ºÉÆgÀr¹gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ §A¢gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. F »£É߯ÉAiÀÄ°è ªÉÆzÀ®£É ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼À ¥Àæ²ßvÀ DzÉñÀPÉÌ ¢£ÁAPÀB23.05.2012 gÀAzÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ vÀqÉAiÀiÁeÉèAiÀÄ£ÀÄß »A¥ÀqÉAiÀÄĪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀÆPÀÛªÉAzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ §A¢gÀĪÀ »£É߯ÉAiÀÄ°è F PɼÀPÀAqÀAvÉ CAwªÀÄ DzÉñÀ DzÉñÀ f¯Áè¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, ¨É¼ÀUÁ« f¯ÉègÀªÀgÀÄ ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀgÀ £ÁåAiÀi¨É¯É CAUÀr ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß CªÀiÁ£ÀvÀÄÛ¥Àr¹ ºÉÆgÀr¹gÀĪÀ DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉåBD¥ÀÇ«B DzÁDB £Áå¨ÉCAB vÀB11B2011-12 ¢£ÁAPÀB2804.2012gÀ DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß JwÛ »rAiÀįÁVzÉ. ºÁUÀÆ ¢£ÁAPÀB2305.2012gÀAzÀÄ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß EvÀåxÀð¥Àr¸À¯ÁVzÉ. vÀqÉAiÀiÁeÉèAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVzÀÝ »A¥ÀqÉzÀÄ 6. Once an Authority exercising quasi-judicial power takes a final decision, such Authority cannot review its decision, unless the relevant statute provides for such review. In H.C. SUMAN AND ANOTHER Vs. REHABILITATION MINISTRY EMPLOYEES’ COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD., NEW DELHI AND OTHERS, (1991) 4 SCC485 Apex Court, with regard to the power to review quasi- judicial order, has held that, once a quasi-judicial order becomes final, it cannot be reviewed by the Authority passing the same, unless such power is provided for. Therein, an order expressly rescinding an earlier valid :
7. : order but impliedly nullifying a final quasi-judicial order issued by the same Authority, having been assailed, on the ground that there is no power conferred, it was held that in the absence of power conferred by the Statute on such Authority, rescission order passed is bad in law.
7. In BINABAI BHATE Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS, (2011) 13 SCC32 with regard to power of review, it has been held that, the power of review against an order passed earlier, being a creature of statute and no power of review having been provided for under the statute, the order passed by the High Court holding that there cannot be any review, is justified.
8. In HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED Vs. MAWASI AND OTHERS, 2012 (7) SCC200 Apex Court has held as follows: “ 26. At this stage, it is apposite to observe that the power of review is a creature of the statute and no court or quasi-judicial body or administrative authority can review its judgment or order or decision unless it is legally empowered to do so.” :
8. :
9. In KALABHARATI ADVERTISING Vs. HEMANT VIMALNATH NARICHANIA AND OTHERS,(2010) 9 SCC437 on the issue relating to review in the absence of statutory provision, it has been held as follows: “12. It is settled legal proposition that unless the statute/rules so permit, the review application is not maintainable in case of judicial/quasi-judicial orders. In the absence of any provision in the Act granting an express power of review, it is manifest that a review could not be made and the order in review, if passed, is ultra vires, illegal and without jurisdiction. (Vide Patel Chunibhai Dajibha v. Narayanrao Khanderao Jambekar (AIR1965SC1457and Harbhajan Singh v. Karam Singh (AIR1966SC641 ) 13. In Patel Narshi Thakershi v. Pradyuman Singji Arjunsighji (AIR1970SC1273, Major Chandra Bhan Singh v. Latafat Ullah Khan, ((1979)1 SCC321, Kuntesh Gupta (Dr.) v. Hundu Kanya Mahavidyalaya (AIR1987SC2186, State of Orissa v. Commr. Of Land Records and Settlement ( (1998) 7 SCC162 and Sunita Jain v. Pawan Kumar Jain ( (2008) 2 SCC705, this Court held that the power to review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either expressly/specifically or by necessary implication and in the absence of any provision in the Act/Rules, review of an earlier order is impermissible as review is a creation of statute. Jurisdiction of review can be derived only from the statute and thus, any order of review in the absence of any :
9. : statutory provision for the same is a nullity, being without jurisdiction.
14. Therefore, in view of the above, the law on the point can be summarised to the effect that in the absence of any statutory provision providing for review, entertaining an application for review or under the garb of clarification/modification/correction is not permissible.” 10. In the instant case, order as at Annexure - B having been passed, respondent No.1 became functus- officio. Control Order, 1992, having not conferred power to review or recall an order, respondent No.1 has acted illegally in passing the order, as at Annexure-C, thereby, rescinding the order passed vide Annexure-B. Undeniably, the petitioner was not provided with an opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order i.e., Annexure- C. Thus, there is violation of principles of natural justice also. Even otherwise, without assigning any reason, the order as at Annexure-A was upheld. Arbitrariness in the matter is writ large. Annexure-C is perverse and wholly illegal. In the result, writ petition is allowed and the order as at Annexure-C is quashed. As a consequence, remand of :
10. : the matter, made to respondent No.1, vide order as at Annexure-B stands restored. Respondent No.1 shall decide the case with expedition and within a period of two months from the date a copy of this order becomes available. No costs. SD/- JUDGE sac*