WP/5417/2006 of M.Gangadhara Rao Vs The District collector, West Godavari District at Eluru on 26 December 2006

ORAL ORDER:

W.P.No.5417 of 2006

This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the order of the firstrespondent in proceedings Roc.No.CS1/2/Revisions/2002 dated 15.2.2003 asarbitrary and illegal.

It appears, petitioner was the authorized fair price shop dealer of Shop No.21,Srinivasapuram village, Jangareddygudem mandal, West Godavari district. Whileso, his authorization was cancelled by the third respondent-Revenue DivisionalOfficer vide proceedings dated 13.5.2002 on the ground that 10 quintals of ricemeant for distribution under Food for Work programme was found being transportedto the black market through cycle rickshaws from the petitioner’s fair price shop. Itseems, the fourth respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer submitted a report to the thirdrespondent and on the basis of the said report, the third respndent issued a showcause notice to the petitioner and petitioner submitted his explanation to the saidshow cause notice. Since the explanation offered by the petitioner was notsatisfactory, the third respondent passed impugned cancellation order dated13.5.2002 holding that it is proved that the dealer has violated clause 4 andcondition 16(4) and the accounts of rice are not maintained properly, which hasgiven scope to transport to the open market and the same is violative of clause 4 ofA.P. Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) ControlOrder, 1973. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner carried the matter in appeal beforethe second respondent-Joint Collector. The second respondent dismissed theappeal vide order dated 6.7.2002. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner further carriedthe matter in revision before the first respondent-District Collector. The firstrespondent also dismissed the revision vide order dated 15.2.2003 confirming theorders passed by respondents 2 and 3. Aggrieved by the same, the present writpetition is filed.

Heard both sides.

The only allegation against the petitioner is that the dealer has not distributed therice meant for Food for Work programme to the beneficiaries to a tune of 10 quintalsfor the month of January 2002 and on verification it was found that there is a deficit inthe stock to an extent of 2.63 quintals. A show cause notice was issued to thepetitioner stating that 10 quintals of rice meant for distribution among the cardholdersunder Food for Work programme was transported to the open market on rickshawswithout making entries in the sales register. The petitioner submitted his explanationstating that while he is proceeding to Mandal Revenue Office, he directedJayavarapu Srinivas and others to take delivery of the said rice from his father whois available in the shop and since his father is an illiterate, entries could not bemade. The rice was delivered against valid coupons and he cannot be heldresponsible for the mis-utilisation of rice by the beneficiaries since he has no controlover them. But the third respondent has not taken into consideration of all theseaspects and cancelled the authorization of the petitioner. The appellate authorityalso simply noted that 10 quintals of rice were being transported to black market anddismissed the appeal, which was also confirmed by the revisional authority.

Conclusion

Absolutely there is no evidence to show that the rice was transported to black-market. There is no dispute as to furnishing of valid coupons against delivery of 10quintals of rice. Both appellate authority and revisional authority have not taken intoconsideration of this aspect while passing the orders. The findings of the thirdrespndent are self-contradictory. At one stage, it was stated that 10 quintals of ricewas being transported to black market without maintaining the accounts properlyand at another stage, it was stated that there was deficit of 2.63 quintals of rice.Further, absolutely there is no discussion as to how these 10 quintals of rice weretaken into black market. No person with such information was examined in theenquiry conducted by the third respondent. Only on the basis of the report of thefourth respndent, the matter was proceeded with. I am of the opinion that the orderpassed by the third respondent as confirmed by the respondents 1 and 2 are ingross violation of principles of natural justice and therefore, the same are liable to beset aside.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the order passed by the third respondentdated 13.5.2002 as confirmed by the second respondent vide order dated 6.7.2002and further confirmed by the first respndent vide order dated 15.2.2003 are set asideand the matter is remitted back to the third respondent for fresh consideration of thematter after hearing the petitioner in this regard and permitting him to cross-examinethe witnesses, if any. The third respondent shall conduct and complete the enquirywithin a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Ifenquiry is not completed within the said period, the authorization of the petitionershall stand restored automatically. No order as to costs.

Date: 26.12.2006

_____________

C.V.RAMULU, J

DA

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU

26.12.2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESHAT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU

W.P.No.5417 of 2006

Date: 26[th] December, 2006

Between:

M.Gangadhara Rao

And

.. Petitioner

The District Collector,West Godavari district, at Eluruand others.

.. Respondents