WP/23746/2004 of E.Rangaiah, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer, on 29 December 2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

WRIT PETITION NO : 23746 of 2004

Between:

E.Rangaiah, s/o Rangaiah, Fair Price Shop Dealer,r/o Sangasamudram, Gopavaram Mandal, Kadapa District.

AND

..... PETITIONER

1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajampet, Kadapa District.

2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Gopavaram Mandal, Gopavaram, Kadapa District.

.....RESPONDENT(S)

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased toissue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ ofmandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in revoking the petitioner'sappointment as Fair Price Shop Dealer, Sangasamudram Village, GopavaramMandal, Kadapa District in his Ref.D/1009/2003, dated 21-09-2004 withoutconsideration, without authority, notice and enquiry as illegal, unjust, arbitrary,without jurisdiction against principles of natural justice and extraneous andconsequently set aside the order passed by the 1s respondent in hisRef.D/1009/2003,dated 21-09-2004.

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.L.J.VEERA REDDY

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

The Court at the stage of admission made the following ORDER:

The petitioner was appointed as a fair price shop dealer by the first respondentthough order dated 28-01-2004 after following prescribed procedure. However, hepassed an order dated 21-09-2004 revoking the order of appointment on the groundthat the petitioner applied for medical leave and did not remit the cost of essentialcommodities for the month of August, 2004.

The matter was listed for admission on 21-12-2004. It was adjourned twice with aview to enable the learned Government Pleader for obtaining instructions.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for CivilSupplies.

Though the learned counsel for the petitioner had urged several contentions onmerits of the matter, this Court is not inclined to deal with the same. The truth orotherwise of the allegations against the petitioner could have been ascertained, onlyafter conducting an enquiry. Clause 5(4) of the Andhra Pradesh Public DistributionSystem Control Order 2001 mandates that the authorisation of a dealer can besuspended or cancelled only after conducting an enquiry and giving an opportunityto the dealer. In the instant case, the first respondent did not issue any notice to thepetitioner. Even if the allegation against the petitioner is true, an order affecting theinterest of the petitioner can be passed only after a notice is issued to him.

On this short ground, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order isset aside. It is, however, left open to the first respondent to pass such orders, as hedeems fit, against the petitioner after issuing a notice to him. No order as to costs.

_______________

kdl

To

1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajampet, Kadapa District.

2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Gopavaram Mandal, Gopavaram, Kadapa District. Kadapa District.

3 Two CCs to the Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, A.P.High Court Buildings,Hyderabad (OUT).Hyderabad (OUT).

4 Two CD copies.