WP/33507/2010 of K. Bharath Vs The Collector ( Civil Suplies ) on 30 December 2010

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside the orderdated 10.02.2010 of respondent No.3 as confirmed in orders dated30.04.2010 and 28.09.2010 of respondent Nos.2 and 1 respectively.

The petitioner is working as a temporary fair price shop dealer. On the basis of inspection of his shop by the Mandal Revenue Inspector, the following five charges were framed against him, videshow-cause notice dated 02.01.2010:

“Charge-1: That the F.P. Shop dealer is not having anyappointment order as F.P. Shop dealer of F.P. Shop No.05 ofChittoor Town and running un-authorizedly and thuscontravened clause 22(vii) of the A.P. State PDS ControlOrder 2008.

Charge-2: That the F.P. Shop dealer is a student andthe shop is run by his family members and thus contravenedclause 22 (vii) of the A.P. State PDS Control Order 2008.

Charge-3: That the F.P. Shop dealer that there is avariation of 22 Kgs of rice as per stock on ground and perstock register (i.e., as per stock register 6.22 Qtls and as perground balance 6.00 Qtls) and thus contravened clause22(viii) A.P. P.D.S. Control Order 2008.

Charge-4: That the F.P. Shop dealer has not writtenthe particulars of stock available in the stock board at the timeof inspection and thus contravened clause 22(viii) A.P. P.D.S.Control Order 2008.

Charge-5: That the F.P. Shop dealer has notmaintained the stock register and sales register properly andthus contravened clause 22(viii) A.P. P.D.S. Control Order2008.”

The petitioner has filed his detailed explanation dated 08.02.2010denying these charges. By order dated 10.02.2010, respondent No.3cancelled the petitioner’s authorization, which was confirmed in theappeal and revision filed by the petitioner, by respondent Nos.2 and 1respectively.

I have heard Sri J. Kanakaiah, the learned counsel for thepetitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for CivilSupplies.

A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner has givendetailed explanation to each of the charges. In reply to charge No.1,he has stated that he was appointed as fair price shop dealer, viderespondent No.2’s proceedings No.D.Dis(b)1506/2005 dated08.06.2005 and that the said charge is totally baseless. In reply to

charge No.2, the petitioner explained that he has applied for M.B.A.correspondence course as he had enough time to study apart fromlooking after the fair price shop and that therefore, he cannot be treatedas a student. The petitioner also submitted that his parents are alsoassisting him in distribution of essential commodities, which ispermissible under the relevant regulations under the control order. With regard to charge No.3 pertaining to variation of 22 kgs of ricebetween stock register and ground stock, he has stated that he hasreceived the total stock of 51.20 quintals at 50 kg per bag from MLSpoint, Chittoor and that during the dispatch of stock, the weightmentwas made without excluding the weight of the gunny bags and thattherefore, there is every possibility of shortage of 2 kgs of rice in eachbag. To charge No.4 pertaining to non-display of stock board, thepetitioner explained that the stock details were painted on the wall ofthe fair price shop premises and in support thereof, he has enclosed aphotograph. As regards charge No.5, he has denied the allegationand pleaded that every month, after receipt of stock and distribution ofessential commodities to the card holders, the stock and sale registersare promptly written day-wise by mentioning the stock balance on theday and that the same was also observed by the inspecting officer atthe time of inspection.

In his order, respondent No.3 purporting to extract theexplanation of the petitioner to each of the charges in an abridgedfashion observed as under:

“....In this context it is submitted that the delinquentdealer is not a permanent dealer and hence the question ofrestoration of the F.P. shop to the above individual does notarise. Being the temporary dealer he has committedirregularities.

The explanation offered by the temporary F.P. Shopdealer is not convincing, and hence the dealership is herebycancelled.”

In my opinion, the order passed by respondent No.3 suffers from total non-application of mind and the reasons assigned by him are notgermane to the charges framed against and explanation offered by thepetitioner. The question before respondent No.3 was whether thecharges framed against the petitioner had merit and substance andthey stand proved or not. For adjudication of these questions, thenature of appointment of the petitioner is totally irrelevant. Whether adealer is permanent or temporary will not make any difference indeciding these questions. Even if the petitioner is a temporary dealer,he is entitled to continue till he is removed in accordance with law. Ifthe charges framed against the petitioner are not proved, he cannot bedisplaced on the mere ground that he is a temporary dealer. No part ofthe petitioner’s explanation offered in respect of the charges has beenexamined by respondent No.3 except mechanically extracting parts ofexplanation offered by the petitioner in respect of each of the charges. In conclusion, respondent No.3 has made a cryptic observation thatthe explanation of the petitioner is not convincing. The approach ofrespondent Nos.1 and 2 is no better either. All these threerespondents have grossly failed to show any sort of seriousness indealing with the case of the petitioner.

Even on merits, I have no hesitation to hold that the chargesagainst the petitioner are absolutely frivolous in nature. The petitionerhas produced evidence in support of his explanation to charge No.1that he was duly appointed as a temporary dealer by respondent No.3,who is competent to make such an appointment. For charge No.2, hehas explained that he is studying M.B.A. through correspondencecourse. The respondents have not cited any regulation, whichprevents a dealer from pursuing distance education course. Similarlyregarding minor variation of stock of rice to the extent of 22 kgs asagainst the stock of 6.22 quintals, the petitioner has given a verysatisfactory explanation, which has not been dealt with at all by any ofthe respondents. Similarly, charge Nos. 4 and 5 are too trivial whichhave already been properly explained by the petitioner.

On a careful consideration of the orders passed by respondentNos.1 to 3, I am of the opinion that they suffer from serious and patentillegality as pointed out hereinabove and accordingly they arequashed. The temporary authorization of the petitioner shall standrestored forthwith and the petitioner shall be continued as temporaryfair price shop dealer till the vacancy is filled up on permanent basis.

Subject to the above observations and directions, the WritPetition is allowed.

As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.42484of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of asinfructuous.

________________________

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

30[th] December, 2010Note: L.R. copies to be marked(B/o) GHNNote: L.R. copies to be marked(B/o) GHN