WP/9249/2006 of M.Ch.Anantha Reddy, Vs The District Collector, on 26 December 2006

ORAL ORDER:

W.P.No.9249 of 2006

This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring theproceedings of the first respondent in Rc.No.CS2/3782/2005 dated3.4.2006 as arbitrary and illegal.

It appears, petitioner was the fair price shop dealer ofChintagunta village, Markapuram mandal, Prakasam district. While so,his authorization was cancelled by the Revenue Divisional Officer,Markapur vide proceedings dated 7.12.2004 after conducting enquiryinto the matter. As many as three charges were framed against thepetitioner, which read as under:

1. That the dealer is selling essential commodities at higher ratesthan the rates fixed by the Government i.e. rice @ Rs.5.50 per kg.instead of Rs.5.25 AAY rice is at Rs.4.00 per kg. instead of Rs.3.00and kerosene is at Rs.11.00 per litre instead of Rs.9.50 to thecardholders thereby violating the Government conditions.’

2. The dealer is opening the shop and selling essentialcommodities only two in a month and thereby causinginconvenience to the cardholders and not distributing essentialcommodities to the remaining cardholders.

3. The dealer has committed certain irregularities in distribution ofessential commodities to the cardholders.

The petitioner seems to have submitted his explanation statingthat he is not guilty of any of the charges framed against him and thesame were made at the behest of third parties who are enimicallydisposed of towards him. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed anappeal before the Joint Collector, Prakasam district. The Joint Collectorvide proceedings dated 30.9.2005 disposed of the appeal holding asunder:

“The case is finally came up for hearing on29.8.2005. Heard the counsel for the appellant. Perusedthe record. After going through the record, it is noticed that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Markapur cancelled thedealership authorization of the appellant basing on thereport of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Markapur. Thecharges framed against the dealer are trivial and technicalin nature. According to clause 5(4) of Andhra PradeshState Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 thecancellation of authorization in spite of submission ofexplanation to show cause notice amounts to substantivepenalty. Period of suspension is to be treated as asubstantive penalty. Here the grounds for cancellation ofthe dealership authorization are not substantial. Hencethe orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Markapurissued in Procs. D.Dis.H/1347/2004 dated 7.12.2004 is setaside. The appeal is allowed”.

From the above order, it is seen that the charges framed againstthe petitioner are trivial and technical in nature. Therefore, there is nonecessity for cancellation of authorization of the petitioner. In fact,cancellation of authorisation in spite of submission of explanation toshow cause notice amounts to substantive penalty and since thegrounds for cancellation of dealership were trivial, the appeal wasallowed by the Joint Collector. Aggrieved by the said order, cardholdershave filed revision before the first respondent-District Collector. The firstrespondent vide order dated 3.4.2006 set aside the order of the JointCollector. Aggrieved by the same, dealer filed the present writ petition.

Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materialmade available on record.

Though the District Collector passed a detailed order, no detailsas to what exactly are the irregularities committed by the petitioner andwhat is the evidence to hold the petitioner guilty of such irregularities arenot available. The Revenue Divisional Officer has not conducted anyindependent enquiry while passing the order dated 7.12.2004

cancelling the authorization of the petitioner.

Conclusion

For all the above reasons, I am of the opinion that the orderpassed by the Revenue Divisional Officer is a cryptic one and the JointCollector has rightly held that the period of suspension is to be treatedas a substantive penalty and the grounds for cancellation of dealershipare not only trivial, but also technical in nature. Therefore, I am of theview that the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Markapurdated 7.12.2004 as confirmed by the District Collector are liable to beset aside.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orderpassed by the first respondent-District Collector dated 3.4.2006 is setaside and the order passed by the Joint Collector is upheld. No orderas to costs.

Date: 26.12.2006

_____________

C.V.RAMULU, J

DA

26.12.2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESHAT HYDERABAD

Date: 26[th] December, 2006

Between:

M.Ch.Anantha Reddy

And

.. Petitioner

The District Collector,Prakasam district & others.

.. Respondents