WP/27807/2005 of Smt. Tejamma, Vs The COllector, on 28 December 2005

ORDER:

The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer in respect of Borgi village, Kangti Mandal,Medak District. The 3[rd] respondent appointed her as permanent dealer videproceedings No.B2/494/2000, dated 05-02-2000 for a period of five years and theauthorization was given to that effect. While so, the 3[rd] respondent issued showcause notices dated 03-08-2004 and 08-12-2004 for which explanation has beenfiled on 24-08-2004. But without considering the explanation of the petitioner, theRevenue Divisional Officer cancelled the authorization by orders dated 14-02-2005.

Questioning the order of cancellation made by the Revenue DivisionalOfficer, dated 14-02-2005, petitioner filed an appeal before the 2[nd] respondent/JointCollector, who is the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority after consideringthe grounds of appeal held that though the petitioner was not a dealer to distributethe kerosene, a charge has been framed as if the petitioner was collecting one rupeeper litre more than the price prescribed by the Government, and as the other charges are also not proved, set aside the orders of the 3[rd] respondent and accordingly,allowed the appeal by order dated 15-10-2005. As against the said order, oneSanjeeva Reddy and others who are residing in the same village have filed arevision before the Collector and the Revisional authority by its order dated 04-12-2005 granted exparte stay of the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 15-10-2005 and allowed the revision on the same day, i.e. on 04-12-2005 remandingthe matter to the Joint Collector for conducting enquiry and for passing final orders.

In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that when the Appellate Authorityconsidered and passed final orders and when a revision is filed before theRevisional Authority, it is not open for the Revisional authority to pass final orderswithout hearing the affecting party under Clause 20 of the A.P. State PublicDistribution System Control Act, 2001. Any person aggrieved by the order of theappointing authority is entitled to file an appeal within 30 days and when any appealis filed, the Appellate Authority may dispose of the appeal after giving reasonableopportunity for making the representations. Clause 6 of Annexure II of A.P. StatePublic Distribution System (Control) Orders, 2001 also prescribes that whiledisposing the appeal, the Appellate Authority shall give a reasonable opportunity formaking the representations and shall pass orders thereon. But in the instant case,no reasonable opportunity has been given to the petitioner and without hearing thepetitioner, granting stay and allowing the revision and remanding the matter to theJoint Collector by the impugned orders dated 04-12-2005 is illegal andunsustainable and against the principles of natural justice and also contrary toClause 20 of the order and Cl.6 of the annexure 2(b) of the Control order.

Accordingly, the impugned orders of the District Collector, Medak Districtdated 04-12-2005 are hereby set aside and the first respondent is directed to hearthe petitioner herein and as well as the revision petitioners and dispose of the sameafter giving reasonable opportunity. Till then, the petitioner shall be permitted todistribute the essential commodities.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.

___________________

Dated: 28-12-2005

Note: Issue C.C.by two days.

B/o

RNS