22.05.2026 Gtk vs Sales on 22 May, 2026

    0
    28
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati

    22.05.2026 Gtk vs Sales on 22 May, 2026

              HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AT AMARAVATI
    
                         MAIN CASE No: W.P.No.14771 of 2026
    
                                   PROCEEDING SHEET
    
    Sl.                                                                            OFFICE
            DATE                                ORDER
    No.                                                                             NOTE
    
    01.   22.05.2026   GTK,J
    
                              Heard learned counsel representing Mr.Sk.Rafi,
                       learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned
                       Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.
    
                              The impugned order dated 14.05.2026 is
                       assailed in the present writ petition.
    
                              The principal contention of the learned counsel
                       for the petitioner is that the impugned order dated
                       14.05.2026 suspending the authorization pending
                       enquiry does not contain the explanation submitted by
                       the petitioner and it only states that in view of the
                       relevant clause and in terms of the circular instructions
                       of the Commissioner, Civil Supplies and based on the
                       report of the Tahsildar, Nandyal Urban Mandal, the
                       authorization of the petitioner is suspended pending
                       enquiry until further orders.
    
                              This Court after going through the impugned
                       order finds that initially basing on the report of the
                       Tahsildar, the charges are drafted and the said order
                       does not indicate whether any explanation was called
                       for in respect of the charges framed and after
                       satisfaction that the explanation was considered. The
                       order only reflects that basing on the circular
                                2
    
    
    instructions and based on the report of the Tahsildar,
    which forms part of the charges, the authorization was
    suspended. Since the said report was not furnished to
    the petitioner, the same cannot be taken into
    consideration. Hence, there is a grave irregularity in
    the passing of the impugned order, qua,               bereft of
    reasons. In M/s State Authority of India Ltd., vs. Sales
    Tax Officer, Rourkela-I [(2008(5) SCC 281],                   at
    paragraph No.10, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed
    as follows:
    
            "reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It
           introduces clarity in an order and without the
           same it becomes lifeless".
    
           In M/s Kranti Associates Private Limited v.
    Masood Ahmed Khan and another [(2010) 9 SCC
    496], the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at paragraphs 12,
    13, 14, 15 and 16, held as follows:
    
        "11. The power and procedure applicable to the said
        Commission has been provided under Section 22 of
        the CP Act. A perusal of Section 22 (1) would show
        that Sections 12, 13 and 14 of CP Act, with
        necessary modification, are applicable to the decision
        making process by the said Commission. Under
        Section 13 of the CP Act, the District Forum has been
        vested, in certain matters, with the powers of a Civil
        Court while trying a suit. Section 13 (4) of CP Act is
        applicable to the said Commission in view of Section
        22 (1) thereof. Similarly, Sections 13 (5), (6) and (7)
        will also apply to the said Commission in view of
        Section 22 (1).
    
        12. On a perusal of Section 13 (4), (5), (6) and (7) of
        the CP Act, it is clear that the said Commission has
        been vested with some of the powers of a Civil Court.
        The following powers have been vested on the said
        Commission:
    
        "13(4) For the purposes of this section, the District
        Forum shall have the same powers as are vested in a
        civil court under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of
                              3
    
    
       1908) while trying a suit in respect of the following
       matters, namely:-
    
          (i) the summoning and enforcing the attendance
          of any defendant or witness and examining the
          witness on oath,
          (ii) the discovery and production of any
          document or other material object producible as
          evidence,
          (iii)    the   reception    of   evidence     on
          affidavits,
          (iv)the requisitioning of the report      of the
          concerned analysis or test from the appropriate
          laboratory or from any other relevant source,
          (v) issuing of any commission for            the
          examination of any witness, and
          (vi) any other matter which may be prescribed.
    
       13. Under Section 13 (5) of CP Act, every proceeding
       of the said Commission will be deemed to be a
       judicial proceeding within the meaning of Sections
       193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code, and the said
       Commission shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for
       the purpose of Section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the
       Code of Criminal Procedure.
    
       14. The above provisions make it clear that the said
       Commission has the trappings of a Civil Court and is
       a high-powered quasi-judicial forum for deciding lis
       between the parties.
    
       15. The necessity of giving reason by a body or
       authority in support of its decision came up for
       consideration before this Court in several cases.
       Initially this Court recognized a sort of demarcation
       between administrative orders and quasi- judicial
       orders but with the passage of time the distinction
       between the two got blurred and thinned out and
       virtually reached a vanishing point in the judgment of
       this Court in A.K.Kraipak and others vs. Union of
       India and others reported in AIR 1970 SC 150.
    
       16. In Kesava Mills Co.Ltd., and another vs. Union of
       India and others reported in AIR 1973 SC 389, this
       Court approvingly referred to the opinion of Lord
       Denning in Rigina vs. Gaming Board Ex parte
       Benaim [(1970) 2 WLR 1009] and quoted him as
       saying "that heresy was scotched in Ridge and
       Boldwin, 1964 AC 40".
    
          Accordingly,      there    shall    be    an    interim
    suspension of the proceedings dated 14.05.2026 vide
                                                      4
    
    
                           Rc.B3/CS/1514/2026 and the respondents are directed

    to permit the petitioner to distribute the essential
    commodities through Fair Price Shop bearing
    No.1384064, Balaji Complex Town, Nandyal Urban
    Mandal, Nandyal District, as usual.

    This Court appreciates the endeavor of the
    learned Assistant Government Pleader in securing the
    instructions from the authorities in time.

    SPONSORED

    In that process, he placed on record the fact that
    the in-charge arrangements are already made. It is
    needless to state that when initial order itself is illegal
    and contrary to law, the consequential orders, if any,
    are also liable to be set aside. The Hon’ble Supreme
    Court in Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant
    Vimalnath Narichania1
    held that “if the foundation is
    removed, the superstructure falls”.
    In Chairman-
    cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited v.
    Ananta Saha2
    , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that
    “if the initial action is not in consonance with law,
    subsequent proceedings cannot sanctify it”.

    List the matter after summer vacation, 2026.

    ______
    GTK,J
    SR/anr

    1
    (2010) 9 SCC 437
    2
    (2011) 5 SCC 142

    [ad_1]

    Source link

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here