Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 911 (AP)

B. Dadapeera v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

2011-10-27

NOUSHAD ALI

body2011
Judgment : 1. The petitioner has assailed the order of the 2nd respondent-Tahsildar, Pamidi Mandal, Anantapur District, dated 20.07.2011 passed in Rc.No.195/2011 suspending the petitioner’s authorization to run a fair price shop, as arbitrary and illegal. 2. The brief facts are that the petitioner was appointed as the fair price shop dealer of shop No.9 of Pamidi Village and Mandal, Anantapur District. The Mandal Revenue Inspector-I inspected the shop on 11.07.2011 and found that the authorization of the petitioner was valid upto 31.03.2010 (as per the copy of the licence filed as material paper by the petitioner) and that the same has not been renewed. He also found that there was shortage of 1 Kg sugar on ground. Prior to the inspection, a vehicle bearing registration No. AP 02X7277 was inspected by the Station House Officer, Pamidi and found transporting 138 packets of P.D.S. rice (each 50 kgs), out of which 58 packets allegedly belonged to shop Nos.3 and 9. Taking cognizance of the said report, the 2nd respondent suspended the petitioner’s authorization pending enquiry, against which the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Heard Sri Kothapalli Ram Mohan Chowdary learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has not committed any irregularities as alleged against him and the impugned order is without jurisdiction, in as much as the Tahsildar is not competent to suspend the authorization pending enquiry. It is submitted that the Revenue Divisional Officer, who is the disciplinary authority, is alone competent to suspend the authorization pending enquiry and to pass final orders. 5. The 2nd respondent has filed counter affidavit. It is stated that the petitioner has indulged in diverting P.D.S. rice to black-market as per the enquiry conducted by him and as per the statement of the owner of the vehicle, who admitted that he purchased rice from shop Nos.3 and 9. 6. During the course of hearing on the earlier occasion, this Court entertained a doubt as to whether the petitioner possesses a valid authorization. The petitioner, therefore, filed a copy of the authorization along with additional affidavit. A perusal of the copy shows that the authorization was valid up to 31.03.2010. 6. During the course of hearing on the earlier occasion, this Court entertained a doubt as to whether the petitioner possesses a valid authorization. The petitioner, therefore, filed a copy of the authorization along with additional affidavit. A perusal of the copy shows that the authorization was valid up to 31.03.2010. Since the authorization was not in existence after 31.03.2010, this Court entertained a doubt as to how it could be suspended by orders dated 20.07.2011. This Court, therefore, directed the respondent to file counter affidavit adverting to the said fact. 7. The 2nd respondent filed an affidavit which states that the authorisation of the petitioner expired on 31.03.2010 and that the petitioner did not file any renewal application within the specified time i.e., 30 days before the expiry of the authorisation. The petitioner filed an application for renewal along with necessary challan only on 20.09.2010 and no orders were passed renewing the authorisation of the petitioner. The affidavit further states that even though the authorisation expired on 31.03.2010 and that there was no renewal, essential commodities were continued to be allotted to the petitioner’s shop due to the inadvertent mistake and since the expiry of the authorisation was not brought to the notice of the 2nd respondent, the impugned order was passed. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly admits that the authorisation of the petitioner had, in fact, expired on 31.03.2010 and that renewal of the same has not been granted so far. The learned counsel, however, submits that in view of the pendency of the application for renewal, the authorisation shall be deemed to be in force and that the petitioner is entitled to distribute the commodities. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that taking into consideration the vagueness of the allegations made against the petitioner and also the unsustainability of the impugned order, the petitioner is entitled for the relief sought for in the writ petition. 9. In order to appreciate the contention that the authorisation of the petitioner is deemed to be in force, it is apt to refer sub-clauses (8), (9) and (10) of Clause-5 of the A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008, which read thus: “5. Issue of Authorisation to fair price shops, Nominated Retailers, Hawkers and establishment: (1) to (7) ……………. In order to appreciate the contention that the authorisation of the petitioner is deemed to be in force, it is apt to refer sub-clauses (8), (9) and (10) of Clause-5 of the A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008, which read thus: “5. Issue of Authorisation to fair price shops, Nominated Retailers, Hawkers and establishment: (1) to (7) ……………. (8) Any application for issue or renewal of authorisation shall be made in the Form-I to this order and every authorisation issued, re-issued or renewed under this order shall be in the form of Authorisation prescribed in Form-II and Form-III in respect of nominated retailer/hawker to this Order. (9) Every application, for renewal shall be made along with the authorisation, before expiry of the period of authorisation. (10) The authorisation may be renewed if the application for renewal is received within one month after the expiry of the period of its validity subject to payment of fee prescribed therefor. However, if an application for renewal of authorisation is not made within one month, after the expiry of its validity, the authorisation shall cease to be valid and the entire security deposit shall be forfeited.” 10. A perusal of the said provisions clearly shows that an authorisation may be renewed, provided the application is filed before the expiry of the period of authorisation or atleast if the application is received within one month after the expiry of the period of its validity and if the application is not made within the said period, the authorisation shall automatically cease to be valid. 11. Admittedly, the petitioner submitted an application for renewal of his authorisation on 20.9.2010 i.e., beyond one month from the date of expiry of authorisation on 31.03.2010. Therefore, the petitioner cannot even seek shelter under the deeming provision of the said Control Order. Apparently, the impugned order dated 20.07.2011 suspending the authorisation of the petitioner was passed without the authorisation being valid and subsisting. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought for in the writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed, at the admission stage. No order as to costs. 13. This case discloses a very serious and sorry state of affairs. Distribution of essential commodities through fair price shops is an activity undertaken by the State to provide commodities to the poor people to avoid their exploitation in the open market. No order as to costs. 13. This case discloses a very serious and sorry state of affairs. Distribution of essential commodities through fair price shops is an activity undertaken by the State to provide commodities to the poor people to avoid their exploitation in the open market. Any amount of caution is required in supervising the functioning of the fair price shops and wherever irregularities are noticed, stringent action of cancellation of authorisation on initiation of appropriate criminal proceedings are provided for in the relevant Statutes. Any such action under the Statutes is possible whenever the dealers violate the provisions or conditions of authorisation. The authorities are entitled to allot the quotas only to the authorised fair price shop dealers. But, in the instant case, a person, who had no valid authorisation in his favour, had been allotted the commodities, thus permitting the distribution of commodities by an unauthorized person. The allegation against the petitioner shows that the petitioner has indulged in black-marketing of rice meant for public distribution system in the open market. This being a serious issue, I am of the opinion that it requires appropriate disciplinary action against the 2nd respondent-Tahsildar, Pamidi Mandal, Anantapur District. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the 2nd respondent has passed similar orders in many cases. The District Collector, Anantapur District, is directed to look into the matter and take appropriate action against the 2nd respondent in accordance with law. 14. Registry to mark a copy of this order to the District Collector, Anantapur District, for appropriate action and to the Principal Secretary to Government, Consumer Affairs, Food and Agriculture Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, for information.