WP/20099/2006 of Puligundla seshadri S/o P. Siddaiah Vs The Mandal Revenue Officer, Irala Mandal, on 28 December 2006

ORAL ORDER:

W.P.No.20099 of 2006

This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring theproceedings of the second respondent in Roc (B) No.1768/2006 dated31.7.2006 suspending the authorization of the petitioner, as arbitraryand illegal.

It appears, petitioner is the authorized fair price shop dealer ofTirumalaiahgari Palli village, Irala mandal, Chittoor district. While so,his authorization was suspended by the second respondent-RevenueDivisional Officer vide impugned proceedings dated 31.7.2006pending enquiry into the allegations made against him. Aggrieved bythe same, the present writ petition is filed.

It is the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that nonotice of any kind was issued to the petitioner before passing theimpugned proceedings. The impugned proceedings were passedbasing on the report submitted by the first respondent-MandalRevenue Officer, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.

This Court, while admitting the writ petition on 26.9.2006, grantedinterim suspension of the impugned order. Now, a counter and vacatestay petition has been filed by the respondents stating that on28.4.2006, the Mandal Revenue Officer along with PanchayatSecretary of E.Chavatapalli village have inspected the petitioner’sshop and found certain irregularities. The fair price shop dealer hasgiven a consent statement before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Iralastating that he has committed irregularities without the knowledge ofdistribution of essential commodities. He further stated that he willmaintain the records properly in future, and requested to drop furtheraction. Hence, the petitioner was allowed to distribute the remainingstock to the cardholders under the supervision of Panchayat Secretary.The suspension proceedings were served on the petitioner on2.8.2006 through Panchayat Secretary and the petitioner did not fileany appeal before the appellate authority. He himself admitted in hisstatement that he has distributed 78 kgs. of sugar, but he has not furnished the accounts for 78 kgs. He has shown accounts for 14 kgs.of sugar, which shows that he has misused 78 kgs. of sugar. But 78kgs. of sugar is not available on ground and also he has notmaintained stock register for sugar and kerosene. This shows that thefair price shop dealer has misused the sugar stock. Thus, the sumand substance of the counter affidavit is that the petitioner himself hadadmitted that he has not maintained the accounts properly, since hehas no knowledge as to the distribution of essential commodities,therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and the interimorder is liable to be vacated.

In view of the fact that there is an effective alternative remedy isavailable to the petitioner against the impugned proceedings, thepetitioner is directed to file a statutory appeal before the Joint Collectorconcerned within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of acopy of this order and work out his remedies. On filing such appeal bythe petitioner, the Joint Collector is directed to dispose of the samewithin a period of four weeks from the date of receiving such appeal. However, during the pendency of the appeal before the Joint Collector,the impugned proceedings passed by the second respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer dated 31.7.2006 shall not be given effectto.

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Noorder as to costs.

_____________

Date: 28.12.2006DA

28.12.2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESHAT HYDERABAD

Date: 28[th] December, 2006

Between:

Puligundla Seshadri

And

The Mandal Revenue Officer,Irala Mandal, Chittoor district & another.

.. Petitioner

.. Respondents