WA/2566/2005 of Bussa Babu S/o Ramaiah Vs The District Collector, Medak District on 28 December 2005

Per G.S. Singhvi, CJ.

This appeal is directed against order dated 28.11.2005 passedby the learned Single Judge whereby he dismissed the writ petitionfiled by the appellant for quashing of the notification dated 27.4.2005issued by Revenue Divisional Officer, Siddipet Division, MedakDistrict (hereinafter referred to as ‘the RDO’) for appointment of fair-price shop dealer at Duddeda village, Kondapaka mandal.

A perusal of the record shows that while the appellant wasoperating as fair price shop dealer at Duddeda village, Kondapakamandal, Deputy Tahilsdar (Civil Supplies), Siddipet submitted reportdated 6.8.1998 to the RDO that the appellant had not distributedessential commodities in the month of May, 1998; that he haddiverted the stock into black market and that he had not maintainedthe record and did not obtain the signatures of the card holders. Onreceipt of that report, notice dated 3.9.1998 was issued to thepetitioner requiring him to show cause against the proposedcancellation of his authorization. After considering the explanationgiven by the appellant, the RDO vide his order dated 22.10.1998cancelled the authorization. He held that there was shortage of onequintal and ninety kgs. of PDS rice and that the appellant had notobtained the signatures of the card holders.

The appeal filed against the order of RDO was dismissed byJoint Collector, Medak vide his order dated 5.2.2001. The JointCollector observed that the explanation given by the dealer regardingshortage of the rice was unacceptable and there was no valid groundor justification to interfere with the order passed by the RDO. Revisionfiled by the appellant against order dated 5.2.2001 was dismissed byCollector, Medak vide his order dated 20.5.2005 as barred bylimitation.

In the writ petition filed by him, the appellant did make prayer forquashing of orders dated 22.10.1998, 5.2.2002 and 20.5.2005, butthe counsel appearing on his behalf did not advance any argument before the learned Single Judge in this regard and confined hissubmission to the appellant’s challenge to notification dated27.4.2005 issued by the RDO for appointment of a new dealer. Thelearned Single Judge held that in the face of order passed by thecompetent authority for cancellation of the authorization of the writpetitioner, there was no valid ground or justification to entertain hisobjection against the action initiated by the competent authority forappointment of new fair price shop dealer.

Shri S.B. Lingaiah Yadav reiterated that the decision of theRDO to re-advertise fair price shop is vitiated by an error of lawbecause, while doing so, the officer concerned overlooked the factthat despite the cancellation of his authorization, the appellantcontinued to operate the fair price shop. Learned counselemphasized that appellant has subsisting right to continue to operateas fair price shop dealer and, therefore, no one else can beappointed in his place.

In our opinion, there is no merit in the argument of the learnedcounsel. Since, the appellant’s prayer for quashing of orders dated22.10.1998, 5.2.2001 and 20.5.2005 passed by the RDO, JointCollector and Collector respectively was not pressed before thelearned Single Judge, the latter cannot be said to have committed anerror when he refused to nullify the notification dated 27.4.2005issued for appointment of a new fair price shop dealer. In our view,the appellant does not have the locus standi to question the action ofthe RDO to invite applications for appointment of new fair price shopdealer.

Faced with this, learned counsel for the appellant argued thatthe order passed by the RDO cancelling his client’s authorizationshould be declared as vitiated by an error of law and quashedbecause the officer concerned did not take into consideration thedetailed reply filed in response to the show cause notice. He furtherargued that the Joint Collector and Collector did not apply their mindto the core issue raised by the appellant and dismissed his appeal and revision by cryptic orders.

In our opinion, there is no merit in the contention of the learnedcounsel. A reading of order dated 22.10.1998 shows that afterconsidering the explanation furnished by the appellant in response tothe show cause notice, the RDO gave detailed reasons for notaccepting the same. He observed that the appellant had not givenany explanation regarding shortage of one quintal and ninety kgs ofPDS rice and his failure to obtain the signatures of the card holdersand maintain the record as per the requirement of A.P. ScheduledCommodities (RDCS) Order, 1973. The findings recorded by theRDO were confirmed by the Joint Collector and Collector byassigning independent reasons. Therefore, we do not find any validground to entertain the appellant’s belated challenge to orders dated22.10.1998, 5.2.2001 and 20.5.2005. Indeed, it is neither the pleadedcase of the appellant nor his counsel argued that the RDO did nothave the jurisdiction to cancel the authorization of the fair price shop.Therefore, it is not possible to find any fault with the order passed bythe RDO, which was confirmed by the Joint Collector and Collector,Medak.

For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal is dismissed.

G.S. SINGHVI, CJ.

R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.

December 28, 2005.

Mvb/vtv