Telangana High Court
WP/34556/2011 of P.Raghunath, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer, on 29 December 2011
NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.34556 of 2011 Date: 29-12-2011 Between P.Raghunath … Petitioner and The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa and another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.34556 of 2011 Order: Heard Sri M.Hamsa Raj, learned counsel
Date: 29-12-2011
Between
P.Raghunath
… Petitioner
and
The Revenue Divisional Officer,Kadapaand another … Respondents
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Order:
Heard Sri M.Hamsa Raj, learned counsel for the petitioner and thelearned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing forthe respondents 1 and 2.
2. The petitioner, who is a Fair Price Shop Dealer, has challengedthe order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa, vide Proceedings inRef.C/2738/2011, dated 20-12-2011, suspending the authorizationpending enquiry.
3. The petitioner is Fair Price Shop Dealer of Shop No.36 ofKadapa town besides in charge dealer of Shop No.35. On 13-12-2011the District Supply Officer, Kadapa along with Assistant Supply Officers,Kadapa and Jammalamadugu Divisions, Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar(in charge), Kadapa and Mill Levy Inspector, Kadapa, inspected the shopand seized rice, which is meant for Public Distribution System besidessugar, Palmolive oil and kerosene on detecting variations in the stock ofcommodities. The District Supply Officer, Kadapa, submitted an inspection report to the 1[st] respondent. The 1[st] respondent, considering the allegations asgrave, suspended the authorization pending enquiry.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that thepetitioner has not committed any irregularity in the distribution ofcommodities and that there is no variation in the stocks.
The petitioner distributed commodities to all the cardholders but due toheavy rush, he was not able to obtain signatures or thumb impressions ofthe card-holders in the Sales Register. Since he was also entrusted withdistribution of rice at Re.1/- per kg. for the months of November andDecember, 2011 at a time, the card-holders could not sign the registeracknowledging the receipt of the commodities. It is further contended thatthe alleged variation is minor in nature and the same does not warrantsuspension.
5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies,however, submits that the petitioner, who is entrusted with the distributionof rice meant for Public Distribution System, has indulged in dealing withthe commodities without maintaining records for his pecuniary gains. Hefurther submits that an enquiry will be conducted after due notice to thepetitioner and the petitioner can as well put-forth the aforesaid facts in theenquiry and defend his case. He further submits that the inspecting teamcategorically found that there are variations not only in the rice meant forPublic Distribution System but also sugar and Palmolive oil, whichcannot be considered as minor in nature. He, therefore, submits that theimpugned order does not warrant any interference.
6. I have considered the aforesaid contentions. Whether thepetitioner could not make entries in the registers though he distributedcommodities and whether he could not take the signatures of thecardholders in the registers in token of receipt of commodities, are all thefacts, which require an enquiry and adjudication.
7. Indisputably, the 1[st] respondent is the competent authority totake disciplinary action to suspend/cancel the authorization as perClause 5 (5) of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System(Control) Order, 2008 (for short ‘the Control Order’).
8. It is well settled that power to suspend/cancel authorization of aFair Price Shop Dealer pending enquiry inhers in Clause 5 (5) of theControl Order. Therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned order iswithout jurisdiction.
9. However, though an authority is competent to pass an order asan interim measure, the same will have to be exercised judiciously.
10. In the instant case, the 1[st] respondent has taken the decisionon the basis of a report of the inspecting team, which clearly indicatedthat there are variations in the stock of essential commodities includingthe rice, which is meant for Public Distribution System. The 1[st]respondent, therefore, found the allegations as grave and accordinglypassed the impugned order.
In my considered view, the 1[st] respondent has passed the impugnedorder on relevant grounds based on relevant material and properlyexercising his jurisdiction.
11. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordinglydismissed, at the stage of admission.
12. In view of disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.Nos.42992 and42993 of 2011 are dismissed as unnecessary. No costs.
29[th] December, 2011.Ak
___________________
NOUSHAD ALI, J.
29[th] December, 2011.(Ak)