WP/3508/2006 of Vemuri Venkata Subba rao Vs The District Collector, on 26 December 2006

ORDER:

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULUW.P.No.3508 of 2006

This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamusto declare the proceedings in Rc.CS/3830/2005,dated 2.2.2006 issued by the 1[st] respondent-DistrictCollector, Prakasam District, Ongole as arbitraryand illegal.

It appears that the petitioner was the fair price shop dealer of Kolachanakota Village, MaddipaduMandal, Prakasam District. While so, hisauthorization was cancelled by the 3[rd] respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole videproceedings dated 5.5.2005. Aggrieved by thesame, the petitioner carried the matter in appealbefore the 2[nd]respondent-Joint Collector,Prakasam District, Ongole. However, the 2[nd]respondent after perusal of the material placed before him allowed the appeal holding that “thecharges levelled against the petitioner are not soserious in nature and according to charge 5 (4) ofthe Andhra Pradesh State Public DistributionSystem (Control) Order, 2001, the cancellation ofauthorization in spite of submitting explanation toshow cause notice amounts to substantive penalty. The period of suspension be treated as substantivepenalty.” Aggrieved by the same, the petitionercarried the matter in revision before the 1[st]respondent-District Collector, Prakasam District,Ongole. The 1[st] respondent after perusing theentire material available on record came to theconclusion that the petitioner/fair price shop dealerhas failed to produce rice coupons as per rules for81 kgs which is more than 1% variation allowed tothe dealer. The petitioner was also found with 76liters of kerosene oil coupons excess than the auditsales when the stocks were verified. It clearlyshows that the dealer is not maintaining true andcorrect accounts. The card holders 12 in numbergave statements that the petitioner/dealer is selling at higher rates viz., rice @ Rs.5.50 ps, per kg., andkerosene @ Rs.10-00, than fixed by theGovernment. Therefore, the 1[st] respondent setaside the order passed by the 2[nd] respondent-JointCollector and directed the 3[rd] respondent-RevenueDivisional Officer to notify the vacancy as per rulesand take action for filling up the vacancy. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. In spite of service of notice, none appearsnor there is any representation on behalf of the 4[th]respondent.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the 4[th] respondent is not a card holderand he has no locus standi, firstly to question theorder passed by the 2[nd] respondent-Joint Collector. Secondly, the 2[nd] respondent after an elaborateconsideration of the matter came to the conclusionthat the charges are not so serious in nature andthe very suspension period shall be treated assubstantive penalty. In spite of this, the 1[st]respondent-District Collector has intervened and set aside the order passed by the 2[nd] respondent andtherefore, the same is arbitrary and illegal.

Learned Government Pleader opposed the

stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitionerand strenuously contended that since there wasvariation in rice as well as kerosene coupons, the1[st] respondent rightly allowed the appeal andordered re-notifying the vacancy.

I have given my earnest consideration to therespective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugnedorder and other material made available on record.

In the order passed by the 3[rd] respondent,certain irregularities committed by the petitionerwere enumerated as under:

1) that the dealer running provisionsshop parallel and it is contrary to PDSAct.shop parallel and it is contrary to PDSAct.

2) That the dealer failed to produce ricefor and for and coupons 81 kgs havingirregularly K.Oil coupons for 76 litersand it is revealed that the dealer hasnot maintained proper accounts.irregularly K.Oil coupons for 76 litersand it is revealed that the dealer hasnot maintained proper accounts.

3) That the dealer is selling Ecs at higher rates ie., Rice is Rs.5.50 and K.Oil isRs.10-00 instead of prices fixed by theGovernment.

4) That the dealer is distributing the Ecswith less weighment i.e., every 20 kgrice the card holder receives only 17kgs and K.Oil ¾ liter to every one liter.with less weighment i.e., every 20 kgrice the card holder receives only 17kgs and K.Oil ¾ liter to every one liter.

5) That the dealer misused 2-04 qtls ofrice without giving to the card holder.rice without giving to the card holder.6)That the dealer is not distributing theEcs properly.Ecs properly.

The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation forthe said charges. In his explanation, he submittedthat the allegation with regard to the distribution ofrice to coupons is very vague and not specific aboutthe month and year and as such, it is invented forthe purpose of implicating him. However, thefinding recorded by the 3[rd] respondent-RevenueDivisional Officer, shows that there was shortage of8 1 kgs of rice and 76 liters of kerosene oil inexcess. But, it does not refer to any month or date. It seems that the Mandal Revenue Officer has submitted a report basing on the representationsubmitted by one Kavala Srinivasarao, Chennupalli Venkataramana and others of KolachanakotaVillage, and recommended for cancellation ofauthorization held by the petitioner. Except this, noenquiry as such has been conducted. Evenassuming that, there was a variation of 81 kgs ofrice in short and 76 litres of kerosene oil in excess,the details are never furnished to the petitioner, soThe 2[nd]that, he could explain the same. respondent-Joint Collector has rightly held that thecharges are not so serious and the period ofsuspension could be treated as substantivepenalty. But, the 1[st] respondent-District Collectorallowed the revision holding that as many as 12card holders gave statement. In whose presencethese 12 card holders were examined and whetherthe petitioner was permitted to cross examine themor not is not known. Such information was notfurnished to him at any point of time. Further, sinceno enquiry was conducted, the findings recorded bythe District Collector, cannot be said to be correct. Under these circumstances, I am of theopinion that the impugned order passed by the 1[st]

respondent-District Collector is liable to be setaside.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the 1[st] respondent isset aside and the order passed by the JointCollector is upheld.

The writ petition is allowed accordingly. Nocosts.

rkk

__________

26-12-2006