ORDER
M.N. Rao, J.
1. This appeal was preferred against an interlocutory order passed by a learned single Judge in W.P.M.P. No. 3761/ 91 in W.P. 3058/91, suspending the order passed by the District Collector, Guntur in R.P. Case No. 112/90-S11 dated 22-1-1991,” dismissing the Revision petition preferred by Nallamothu Venkateswarlu, a Fair Price Shop Dealer of Nadendta village in Guntur District. On the previous occasion when the Writ Appeal came up for admission we directed that the writ petition along with the writ appeal be listed for disposal and accordingly both came up for hearing today.
2. The petitioner in the writ petition is an authorised Fair Price Shop Dealer of Nadendla Village, Guntur District. Certain complaints were received against him alleging that he was not distributing the essential commodities to the card-holders properly. Based on the complaints, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet, the competent authority, passed an interim order on 10-1-1990 temporarily cancelling the authorisation of the petitioner and making alternative arrangements for distribution of the essential commodities to the card-holders. On the same date, a show-cause notice was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer to the petitioner alleging that he lifted the stock of rice for the month of November but did not distribute the same to the card-holders and thereby caused great inconvenience by selling rice in black market. 26 card numbers are specifically mentioned in the charge No. 1 which also recites –
“wrong entries were made in the connected stock registeres showing as if full quota of rice and sugar was distributed.”
The second charge was to the effect that he lifted the full quota of sugar for the month of November, 1989, but did not distribute the
same to 179 card-holders (the numbers of cards are mentioned in the charge), but he obtained wrong thumb impressions and signatures in the connected sale register and sold the stock in the black-market and thereby violated the provisions of A.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1973.
In his explanation the petitioner denied the allegations that he sold rice in blackmarket, that as elections were not held in the month of November, some politicians intervened and threatened the Mandal Revenue Officer to send up false reports against him, that some card holders did not bring the cards but he delivered the commodities to them after taking their signatures in the sales register. Two cards he submitted for purpose of verification and stated that ‘if the rest of the cardholders are also examined by the R.D.O.. the truth will come out.’ As regards the second allegation his explanation was that the quota for the month of November was supplied to him on 30-11-89, he distributed the same in the first week of December and as the material was accumulated, he delivered the same to the card-holders “even though they have not brought the cards, by entering their names in the sale register and obtaining their signatures.” He furnished the numbers of nine cards for the purpose of verification for ascertaining the truth. He reiterated the same explanation that because of the intervention of the politicians, the Mandal Revenue Officer, sent up a false report against him.
3. The Mandal Revenue Officer who conducted the enquiry, in his report dt. 4-4-90 submitted to the Revenue Divisional Officer, stated that the explanation of the petitioner was not correct. His enquiries revealed that some of the card-holders did not receive essential commodities during the month of November, 1989. They told him that whenever they went to the fair price shop of the petitioner he did not respond in proper manner. The Mandal Revenue Officer concluded that the petitioner was indulging in malpractices and violated the conditions of the authorisation. The Revenue Divisional Officer, after considering the report of the
M.R.O., came to the conclusion that both the allegations were proved and that the petitioner caused great inconvenience to the cardholders. He, therefore, cancelled the authorisation of the petitioner. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal to the Joint Collector who by his order dated 2-11-1990 dismissed the appeal. In revision, the District Collector after hearing the arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioner held by his order dated 22-1-1991 that the petitioner had contravened condition No. 8 of the authorisation issued under the A.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by-Card System) Order, 1973 and, therefore, there was no necessity to enquire any card-holders. On that view, he declined to interfere with the order passed by the appellate authority. Challenging the same, W.P. No. 3058/91 was filed.
4. As already stated supra, the learned single judge at the interlocutory stage suspended the revisional order of the District Collector taking the view that at the time of the explanation itself the petitioner mentioned the names of 9 card-holders and asserted that if those nine persons were examined truth would came out, but the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer did not disclose whether those nine persons were examined by the Mandal Revenue Officer. On that view the learned judge observed that due opportunity was nol given to the petitioner to submit his case. The order of the learned judge was questioned in the present appeal by third parties who filed complaints before the authorities in the first instance alleging malpractices against the petitioner.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order of the District Collector passed on his revision petition was not the subject matter of either the charge or enquiry. Had the petitioner been told that condition No, 8 of the authorisation was breached, he would have submitted an appropriate explanation which could have been accepted by the authority concerned. But the two charges levelled against the petitioner did not relate to violation of condition No. 8. He says that the enquiry report of the Mandal Revenue Officer was not furnished to the
petitioner and no opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross-examine the cardholders who were examined and whose statements were recorded by the Mandal Revenue Officer in the enquiry conducted by him. Principles of natural justice, according to the learned counsel, have been violated and therefore, the entire proceedings must be set aside.
6. In opposition to this, the learned Government Pleader maintains that when a mandatory condition was breached by the petitioner on his own admission, any further enquiry would be superfluous. There is no fundamental right vested in the petitioner to act as an agent of the Government to distribute essential commodities to the cardholders; Violation of condition No. 8 was implicit in the two charges levelled against the petitioner and, therefore, it was superfluous to include in the charge-memo the specific allegation regarding violation of condition No. 8.
7. Sri Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for respondents 5 to 18 argued supporting all the contentions raised by the learned Government Pleader; he also contended that principles of natural justice cannot be imprisoned in a straight jacket, and with mathematical precision, the ambit and content of the principles of the principles of natural justice cannot be laid down. Their application depends upon several circumstances like the extent of the right alleged to have been violated, the nature of the proceedings and the administrative realities.
8. Condition No. 8 of the authorisation issued to the petitioner reads :
“The holder of this authorisation shall whenever he supplies any commodity, make entries in the supply card of the consumer concerned indicating the exact quantity delivered and the date of delivery in the space provided in the supply card.”
Whether violation of condition No. 8 was part of the allegations levelled against the petitioner?
9. Allegation No. 1, which relates to the
petitioner’s failure to distribute rice to the card-holders clearly recites, after specifying the numbers of 26 cards –
“you lifted the whole stock of rice and sugar for the month of November, 1989 but not distributed the same to the consumers (26) causing great inconvenience to the cardholders by selling the commodities meant for distribution to the cardholders, in black market. Wrong entries were made in the connected stock registers showing that full quota was distributed.”
So far as the second allegation is concerned, it was recited in the show cause notice that –
“you have got wrong thumb impressions and signatures in the connected sales registers and sold the stock to be distributed to the above card-holders in the blackmarket and caused great inconvenience to the cardholders and violated the provisions, relating to distribution by Card System Order, 1973.”
It is also mentioned in allegation No. 2 that the petitioner lifted the full quota of Sugar for the month of November, 1989 and not distributed the same to 179 card-holders (numbers of the cards are mentioned).
10. From the acts of misconduct attributed to the petitioner, it is clear that he was put on notice about the wrong entries made in the registers without corresponding entries in the ration cards. We must also mention in this context that violation of the provisions of the statutory order, 1973 was specifically mentioned in the show cause notice. This aspect of the matter was also noticed by the appellate authority, the Joint Collector, in his order dated 2-11-1990. It is, therefore, not open to the petitioner to contend that he was taken by surprise regarding violation of condition No. 8. In his explanation, the petitioner had clearly admitted that in respect of some ration cards, he supplied the essential commodities without making any endorsements on the cards, but entered the names of the individuals in the sales register and obtained their signatures. In view of this categorical admission on the part of the petitioner about the
violation of the conditions of the authorisation, it is not open to him to contend that non-examination of the card-holders, in order to establish the charge against him, is fatal to the enquiry. In the absence of endorsements on the cards, we must necessarily presume that the entries in the sales registers are wrong entries. There cannot be two opinions on this aspect.
11. This is not a case of denial of natural justice. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and after considering the explanation submitted by him, the competent authority passed the order cancelling the authorisation. Before passing that order, in our opinion, it was not necessary for the competent authority (Revenue Divisional Officer) to record the statements of the card-holders in view of the admission made by the petitioner in his explanation.
12. The extent of the application of principles of natural justice depends upon the nature of the right alleged to have been violated and the admissions made by the person concerned. The learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the following rulings :
Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan , S. L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan , Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India Sur Enamal and Stamping works v. The Workmen , Board of High School & Intermediate Edn., U.P. Allahabad v. Ghanshyam Das Gupta .
None of the above cases in our considered opinion supports the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner. Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan lays down that failure to furnish a copy of the enquiry officer’s report is fatal to the order of punishment imposed. Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India is concerned with a case arising under Art. 311 of the Constitution.
In the application of the principles of natural justice, the nature of the proceedings and violation of the alleged right assume great relevance. Rights guaranteed under Art. 311
and 16(1) of the Constitution are entirely different from the authorisations granted to private individuals to distribute essential commodities to card-holders. In the latter case, no fundamental right comes into play. Whatever is laid down in the Regulations concerning distribution of essential commodities aione, shall constitute the basis in judging the alleged invasion of the right. Even in such cases the principle of audi alteram partem necessarily applies which means that before any action which results in adverse consequences is taken, the person affected must be heard. In the present case, the petitioner was in fact given a show cause notice and after considering his explanation and the admissions contained therein, the order of cancellation was passed. In the particular circumstances of the case, we find it impossible to stretch the application of principles of natural justice in the manner contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
A departmental enquiry conducted by a comptent authority in accordance with the provisions contained in the disciplinary code certainly stands on a different fooling, than an enquiry conducted by an officer of the Government under the control orders made under the Essential Commodities Act, against a distributor/fair price shop dealer. A statutory body like a local authority, as the one involved in S. L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan (2) cannot be Superseded until it was told about the lapses committed by it warranting supersession.
13. In Swadeshi Cotton Mills case Mukherjee, J., held (at plage 839 (of AIR 81) :
“The second question, however, as to what are the principles of natural justice that should regulate administrative act or order is a much more difficult one to answer. We do not think it either feasible or even desirable to lay down any fixed or rigorous yard-stick in this matter. The concept of natural justice cannot be put into a strait-jacket. It is futile, therefore, to look for definitions or standards of natural justice from various decisions and then try to apply them to the facts of any given case. The only essential point that has to be
kept in mind in all cases is that the person concerned should have a reasonable opportunity of presenting his case and that the administrative authority concerned should act fairly, impartially and reasonably. Where administrative officers are concerned, the duty is not so much to act judicially as to act fairly. See, for instance the observations of Lord Parker in In re H.K. (an infant) 195 AC 201 (HL)”
The course of action followed by the authorities in the present case fully measures up to the standard of natural justice laid down in the above statement of law.
14. The ruling in Board of High School & Intermediate Education, U.P. Allahabad v. Ghanshyam Das Gupta concerns cancellation of examinations involving serious lapses like impersonation and fraud. It was held that the disciplinary authority should act judicially in dealing with the rights of examinees, and this ruling does not apply to the facts of the present case.
15. In Chairman, Board of Mining Examination and Chief Inspector of Mines v. Ramjee speaking for the Division Bench V. R. Krishna Iyer, J., very realistically stated the legal position relating to the application of the principles of natural justice :
“Natural justice is no unruly herae, no lurking land mine, nor a judicial cure-all. If fairness is shown by the decision maker to the man proceeded against the form, features and the fundamentals of such essential processual propriety being conditioned by the facts and circumstances of each situation, no breach of natural justice can be complained of. Unnatural expansion of natural justice, without reference to the administrative realities and other factors of a given case, can be exasperating. We can neither be finical nor fanatical but should be flexible yet firm in this jurisdiction. No man shall be hit below the belt –that is the conscience of the matter.”
The right of the petitioner to carry on trade in food stuffs is no way affected because of the impugned action. His right to carry on business in food stuffs is entirely different
from his claim to continue as an agent of the government to distribute essential commodities to the card-holders. The essential commodities are owned by the State Government and the same are given to the petitioner for distribution to the cardholders in accordance with the provisions of the Control Order. The petitioner gets a margin of profit and this right cannot be equated with a fundamental right.
16. Dealing with an analogous situation, the Supreme Court in Sarkari Sasta Anaj Vikreta Sangh Tehsil Bemetra v. State of M.P. observed (at page 2035 (of AIR):
“The fundamental right of traders like the petitioners to carry on business in foodstuffs was in no way affected. They could carry on trade in foodstuffs without hindrance as dealers; only they could not run fair price shops as agents of the Government. No one could claim a right to run a fair price shop as an agent of the Government.”
The object of the Regulations in requiring a dealer to maintain accounts correctly and make endorsements on the ration cards when essential commodities are distributed, is to maintain effective control over the stocks of essential commodities and to ensure their proper distribution to the ration cardholders. We must not lose sight of the fact that essential commodities are supplied at subsidised prices to the economically weaker sections and any lapses committed by the agents in the distribution must be viewed seriously; considerations of sympathy have no place in judging the lapses.
18. We do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the District Collector as Revisional authority, while upholding the order passed by the original authority and the appellate authority. The quantum or the propriety of punishment of cancellation of the authorisation is not a matter which can be considered under Art. 226 of the Constitution, if the authority under the relevant provisions of law has power to impose a particular punishment.
19. The writ petition, therefore, fails and
is accordingly dismissed. The writ appeal filed by respondents 5 to 18 in the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
20. Before parting with the case we place on record our appreciation of the able arguments advanced by Sri Posani Venkates-warlu, representing counsel for the appellant, Sri G. Rama Rao, counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sudarshan Reddy, learned Government Pleader.
21. Petition dismissed.