C Venkataramanappa vs The Hon’Ble Minister For Food And … on 23 June, 2008

BETWEEN:

r «um-nu...

P". g

"    : Twhc  C«omn1.1'ss:ioncr (Food)

     Tahsildazr

xx mm mm coma' or KARHATAKA. Arr    -  
Dated this the 23rd day o£Jime,.2oos ,  " j  A:  
BEFORE  

mm Hownm me. JU S"ri(?.E_N  1
Wm Petiticznn Ne-.':' I~e§62Zi§f '2;€§{}7'v'.V('GM[E(7§1x 

C Veflkataramanapgrg 

S/0 Chajmappas H  55*  .
Aged about 40:zea.rs-.  
R/o Nandanavazxa 'Vfiiage '   '
Kolar District _     _ _' ...Pct1'fiomer

(By    Senior Counsel for
Sri Jaykgmnar :3.  :29 Associates, Advocates)

AND:

. The Ho1:'b1¢"Ministcr

_ 91'   Supplies:

" ._Gc>vcrV'n'3:r:i€r.n__t'~@f'Ka1nataka
V'idha;t1_1»1 
BéL£1ga;1:)re¥'i

T lfiolar Diatriot

Chintamaxxi Taluk
Kelar Distitict V



4 The Commissioner for
Food and Civil Supplies
Cunnilaghaxn Road
Bangalore

5 Sri Manjunatha Raddy
S] 0 Venkatmayappa
Aged about 34 yaars
R] 0 Handanavana Village
Kolar Districztt _    VF?cspa.31idg:.nt_s 

(By Sri H T Nercndra Prasad,    t(§}R4;
Sri B Papegowgia,  fa-gf R5)  

This Writ Petition is fiied'i:i1df%rA.AI1ieie":§  and 227 of
the Constitution of India, p_1ja y1'-v1_2g ta; q:iash~~..'i'.b.e enicr datsd
19-2-2(}O'5, pmduc:¢tl__ at,'  ~  by the
msponticill-2, 111é§,o111t:i*_ daieii 341-.-5*E2;€}9?=, vidt: A1u.u:xu1t:-(3
pas:-'Mad by the rm-apnn¢*}§:tfit~'2.._'  V'   W V .

This Wait     hearing this
day, the  filflcitf; thééibildiying: _

A %  "v"g:%M'T'a. fn:M .2. R

The _vpefiiien¢1'.h§asA c;»11aE"iéngcd in this writ petition the

bififir  by  '"L".«",j{Jtliy Commissioner cancelling the

fi1zthoiisa1i4z;:§"giv.§j: = :9 him to distfibutc food articles and the

  ortief .  appellate authority and rcvisional

 éaufhoxities  the said antler.

u/



2. The pefitiancr was given authorisation unde.?}ythe

PDS Control order to distribute food articles at A' 

Village as per Annexmwc-A. Peztiticner belongs   

depressed class. His case is that  '*.¥'3it€:p a3"z§L:_"§§;1;«1n1Ca1 

1 a_'

towaxtis the petitzianar gave a ocsmplazlnt tic:  ;:¢'sp4:%nfi§x:t:V 'V

alleging cartain imtgulalities in  pfi&'s§Ofi 
On receipt: of the cflmpiajmg.  £iifi1'_)OI1(fii'éIV1"i  for
inspection to: the fair    {flats the thiiti
mspondent cam:  had no notice
and due to   not he presttnt in
the shop. _Thc  verifying the mcorda
has sent   respondent. Thczeafierr the

authorisation 111;:  to be suspended, against:

which  "p;*feferrr.§<i--  afxpcal. Interim ardcr was refused.

 Thgrefqfe,   revision to the amt mspondcnt, who

 in favour of the petitioner till the disposal

 'e-if the  before the second respondent.

  'A   'C.|rn 17.08.2000, the mtitioner sent his reply to the

élflégfifiuxis made: against him. Again the petificmer was issued

VT  and axpianation was sought for, The petitioner gave his.

 



   pefitioncf assa;il:ing the impugzecl cmiers,

pI'inc:;i;5It:.$ of justice as the petitioner was not heard in
"  mattef  the Deputy Commissioner. Secondly, he
  that the petitioner dcmctz-Iastratcd that the aiiegatiens

.   bgézeiess and thercfrzma-, the impugned onicrs could not have

expianatien on 04.10.2094. The third mspondef,:f:;t-- 
properly appmciaiing the stand of the pefifiollmf,  K  
:9 appear before him on 22.01.2005. ..d§.:gy 
sitting and the case was  VV 
05.02.2905, without hearing V-pcfifibncf 
providing an oppertunity to  'that   féfi; ordem

on 19.02.2005. On   the
authorisation wag   preferred an
appeal to the  's;V;2~.V1;a'z\;1'Vvo11:I<z:r, which also

came to bev§:1i.sg1§i5;§:¢§';1.:::__fIfhs:§t'::f%i-:zé,'1rh;:_gictitioner is before this

Court.
4.   » S15,  S. Patil, lcamcd Senior Counsci

  orders are passed in violation of



  of Vproeeedings at the interlocutory stage,

  1i:t§c-tvplooemi. Ulfimately, when the ooneemed

  D_ep11ty"«. Cammfieioner proceeded with the enquiry, the
" 'pefifipeer  served with nofim to appear. His contention
 he.\§a$ not heavd, in the facts of this case, is Without any

  The Beputy Commissioner has taken note of the

    filed by the petitioner and by giving cogent reasons has

bmn passed. Therefore, he seeks for setting " 

impugned order.

5. Per contra, learned  lfer the'V."_E's'p():1::v<:ieiit 'V

supported the impugned order.

6. From the   "Lie clear that
petittioner was givezfix   V'  essential
Oflmmfldiflfifie   "*".'€*3   ShOW cause
notice   which he has
cnmmittedi;r._' in  fie petitioner, he has tried to

give explanatiezyée   ease that those ailegatjons are

  :V.T'_'s't;éy of the order of auspension and the



 'has rfi V.   ¢_ envision as well.

'   'A  v_ allegation against the petitioner was fhat:
 ndipiistxibuted the food articles to 46 BPL cardholdera
 fine month of April, May and June 2000. The
 ----e§fi§pI:e;"1afion gven was that those 4-0 card holders. did not come

   collect the fgod articles in the month of April, May and June.

held that all the three alletgaticms against the ~ V.
pmved. In the appeal prrefems-,i11g so, it was
convinced    fjcputy Commissioner
is based  h:g%saAiVVeiJid._e§1ce;' ii: the naturxe of admissions
and does    infirmity. Therefore the

appellate: 'C3-;rei1.11't  'fhe. appeal. The rcvisional authozrjty

V e



'-4

The food mains remainad undisizibutad to: them. The A'
the mmaining stock was aubmitted to $316: ofiicc.  "
burciezn was on the petitioner 1:0 shew.     '
holders am not come: and moeive: 2 
oniaz' of the Deputy C-OI!1IniSSiO11¢VIfJt'§,i..%l€LJ'.SAt38!V: 
persens did not collect thg food   gains
she-uid have been mcnfioh§':§"in submitted by the
and of the month and_    for the next
month, the 3am;   consiaicxatioxa.
Admittediy,    this matter to the
a11'thorities;j  only at the and of the
third mantij. £53   iiirought to the notice of the

atlthorifif-..s_ at    Thamforc, the Deputy

 was  in holding that then: is lapse on

t1v1:=2L_';;*e:if'f:"caf  Vfiiétiifioper.

8. ._ A '  "inufsc fhfas pefitianer not being present at the time

Vof.' inspécfioff is Efionearned, it is admittcti that. petitioner was

"  "Them is no law which says he should be given

   before the authorities inspects the shop. In fact,

ix/%



8

the very object of inspwtion shall be defeated if prior Iacbtxkzze is
givcn. Under these circumstances, the amend chaigc lejzejiezd
agairrzst him also is admitted and stands proved. M  %  

9. in so far as thjxti charge: that he has  _
riot: meant for distribufion for mhool chflgimn is   " 
1l'.i0t'f: was allotted for being   
Admittedly, the pefitioner distrihuficd     V
2000. Therefore, there is misapprfiipgiafien   for
nearly four months. Thtezffifsgrt,'   also
Stands      V  _  

10. If  is;   contcnfion of
the petifioner  not hear him,
the appeal   pmcewings, he
gave amp1é o1}v6%i3ifiiifi:Li-pefifione: to substantiate his
charges. ésgurws that in spite of several

.VV 

finding authoxtiiics have concuzmnfly htéifii   'V

agairmt the petitioner stands  amzplé 
W83 gvcn to substantiate his.' dc:I'e&11t:t:VV:$éi;:r:1'V' 'irlgey '}1fl£lV€~ffl3V(§{'.fl into
consicierafion the objc9ctio:'{1'sA«'    the nature of
admission of cha1'g¢$f'lcye1Ic§dV'    of fact is

based on legal  and apt  {fir fiflfeflemnm. Hence

   % Sd/'3
 .....