WP/27894/2005 of S. Bhaskar Reddy S/o Pedda Sanjeeva Reddy Vs The Joint Collector, Kurnool on 29 December 2005

ORDER:

The petitioner has been appointed as the fair price shop dealer ofOntivelagala Village, Gospadu Mandal, Kurnool District in the year1995 and he has been distributing essential commodities without anycomplaints whatsoever. It is stated that the Revenue DivisionalOfficer, Nandyal, who is the appointing authority, cancelled theauthorization of the petitioner by the impugned order dated16.11.2005 on the ground that a complaint has been given againstthe petitioner stating that the petitioner has been elected asPresident, Primary Agriculture Co-operative Society, Gospadu and onthe said complaint the Mandal Revenue Officer enquired the matterand reported that the petitioner has been elected as such andtherefore the petitioner is not desirable to continue as fair price shopdealer of the said village. It is further stated that the continuance of the petitioner as fair price shop dealer is contrary to certain clauses ofthe A.P.State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001 andtherefore the authorization of the petitioner has been cancelled. Thepetitioner is not disputing the fact that he has been elected asPresident of the Primary Agriculture Co-operative Society, Gospadu.The only grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned order ofcancellation is passed without giving notice or reasonable opportunityto the petitioner, which is illegal, and against the principles of naturaljustice and contrary to Clause 5(4) of the Control Order. Clause 5(4)of the Control Order contemplates that without making an enquiry theauthorization cannot be cancelled or suspended. Enquiry includesnotice by following the principles of natural justice. It is further statedthat if notice is issued, it is for the petitioner to choose any one of theposts either the dealership of the fair price shop or the President ofthe Primary Agriculture Co-operative Society.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learnedGovernment Pleader for Civil Supplies.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of theopinion that the impugned order dated 16.11.2005 is contrary to sub-clause (4) of Clause 5 of the Control Order. Thus, the impugned orderis liable to be set aside as being violative of the principles of naturaljustice and the mandatory requisite of enquiry has to becontemplated. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 16.11.2005passed by the 2[nd] respondent is set aside and the 2[nd] respondent isdirected to issue notice and pass appropriate order in accordancewith law.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

________________

(V.ESWARAIAH, J.)

29.12.2005

Note: Issue copy within two days.

B.O.

kpr