Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 143 (AP)

K. Sunitha v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool

2012-02-08

NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

body2012
Judgment : This writ petition is instituted challenging the validity of the orders passed on 30.11.2011 by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool, restoring the authorization of the third respondent fair-price shop dealer of H. Kottala Village of Bethamcherla Mandal, Kurnool district, duly imposing a fine amount of Rs.10,000/-on her, as bad and illegal. 2. The writ petitioner is appointed as a temporary fair-price shop dealer subsequent to the cancellation of the authorization of the fair-price shop run and manage by the third respondent for H. Kottala Village, Bethamcherla Mandal, Kurnool District. Proceedings appointing the writ petitioner as a temporary dealer were issued by the Revenue Divisional officer, Kurnool, on 30.11.2011. 3. The third respondent was an authorized dealer of the fair-price shop at H. Kottala Village of Bethamcherla Mandal. A report was filed on 10.11.2009 by the Tahsildar, Bethamcherla Mandal, setting out that the Village Revenue Officer and the Talari found the third respondent to have stored 408 litres of Palmoline Oil and 152 quintals of Redgram Dal unauthorizedly at Naresh Marble Factory, near H. Kottala Village on 08.01.2009, due to rain, but actually with a malafide intention to divert the same into black market. Therefore, this Tahsildar, Bethamcherla Mandal, suspended initially the authorization of the fair-price shop of the third respondent. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.28913 of 2010, the enquiry proceedings were taken up by the Revenue Divisional Officer. He passed orders on 29.10.2010 cancelling the authorization, on the basis that, he was not satisfied by the explanation offered by the third respondent for storing the Palmoline Oil and the Redgram at the premises of Naresh Marble Factory. The third respondent then carried the matter by way of an appeal in terms of Clause 20 of Andhra Pradesh Essential Commodities Public Distribution System (Control). The Joint Collector passed orders on 14.07.2011 directing the Revenue Divisional Officer to conduct the enquiry denovo. The Joint Collector, Kurnool, has found that the unloading of stocks took place on 08.11.2009 at about 05.30 PM whereas, they were seized on the same day at about 06.30 PM and therefore the Joint Collector was of the opinion that the food-grains stock is still in transit and hence the matter requires to be re-examined. In the return journey, the Revenue Divisional Officer called for a fresh report from the Tahsildar, Bethamcherla. In the return journey, the Revenue Divisional Officer called for a fresh report from the Tahsildar, Bethamcherla. The Tahsildar, Bethamcherla, in turn had examined Sri P. Vijaya Bhaskar, the route officer and also the Village Revenue Officer of H. Kottala Village. 4. Essential commodities are generally stored at Mandal Level Stock Points (MLS Points). From such MLS points, as per the release orders passed by the Tahsildar (Civil Supplies), the commodities were required to be supplied to all the fair-price shops using a common transportation facility. It is stated that, with a load of huge quantities of essential commodities loaded at MLS Point, Dhone, the Route Officer started distributing the essential commodities to various dealers. When the truck has reached the road point where H. Kottala bus stage was situate, the truck driver was not willing to take the truck right up to the fair-price shop dealers premises of H. Kottala Village as it was found raining on the said day. It was noticed that, inspite of the husband of the third respondent refusing to receive the stock at the point of H. Kottala Village bus stop, instead of supplying them at the fair-price shop premises, however the Route Officer appears to have persuaded the third respondent and her husband to allow the stock to be unloaded at that point itself as it was raining very heavily and there were several other fair-price shops to whom essential commodities ought to delivered. Hence, the third respondent and her husband have agreed for unloading the essential commodities at the point of the village bus stop. The stocks have been stored in the premises of nearby Marble Factory to save them from getting drenched, while, the husband of the third respondent seems to have gone to the village for fetching an auto for transporting the essential commodities from the point where they were unloaded to the fair-price shop premises. In the interregnum period, they were seized by the Revenue Officer suspecting the third respondent to have stocked the same at the Marble Factory with a malicious intention to divert the same into black market. Accordingly, the Tahsildar has submitted his report. 5. In the interregnum period, they were seized by the Revenue Officer suspecting the third respondent to have stocked the same at the Marble Factory with a malicious intention to divert the same into black market. Accordingly, the Tahsildar has submitted his report. 5. When once the Revenue Divisional Officer is convinced that the Route Officer who normally accompanies the stock laden truck for delivering the essential commodities to various fair-price shop dealers as per their entitlement, has persuaded the dealer to allow the stocks to be unloaded at the village bus stop point itself, instead of at the premises of fair-price shop, the conduct of the third respondent in unloading the said stock and consequently trying to preserve them in a room of the nearby Marble Factory does not appear to be foul or suspicious conduct. It will be difficult to assume any sinister design in that process. However, the Revenue Divisional Officer thought it appropriate to impose a hefty fine of Rs.10,000/-on the third respondent for the misdemnor of allowing the stocks to be unloaded at a different point instead of at the fair-price shop premises and restored the authorization of the third respondent. 6. By virtue of the restoration of the authorization of the fair-price shop dealership of the third respondent, the writ petitioner will have to automatically make way for the third respondent. Hence, she instituted the present writ petition challenging the correctness and validity of the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer accordingly on 30.11.2011. 7. Heard Sri K. Srinivas, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and Sri K. V. Raghuveer on behalf of the third respondent. 8. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has placed reliance upon the Judgment rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in M. Vanaja Vs. B. Balaseshanna & Others (2008 (1) ALT pg 520) in support of his contention that a temporary dealers has the necessary locus to challenge the correctness of the action taken by the Revenue Divisional Officer against a defaulting dealer. 9. When once essential commodities which are heavily subsidized by the State are allowed to be distributed strictly in conformity with the rules/regulations/orders framed by the State, every tax-payer can have a legitimate right to evince interest in the quasi judicial exercise initiated against any defaultee/dealer. 9. When once essential commodities which are heavily subsidized by the State are allowed to be distributed strictly in conformity with the rules/regulations/orders framed by the State, every tax-payer can have a legitimate right to evince interest in the quasi judicial exercise initiated against any defaultee/dealer. The cardholders, the alert citizens and all those who are concerned with the purity of the public distribution system have an equal and compelling stake in the entire process. Therefore, I do not agree with the contention of Sri K.V. Raghuveer that the writ petitioner has no locus to challenge the correctness of the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer on 30.11.2011. 10. But however, the Revenue Divisional Officer has passed the orders dated 30.11.2011 after a thorough verification of the entire fact situation. The Revenue Divisional Officer is satisfied that the food-grains of 408 litres of Palmoline Oil and 152 quintals of Redgram Dal, have been unloaded at about 05.30 P.M on 08.11.2009 from the truck, pursuant to the reluctance of the truck driver to go right up to the premises of the fair-price shop in the peculiar circumstances prevailing on the said date. The further fact remains that the said stock was seized in an hour’s time thereafter. The explanation of the third respondent/dealer was that, since it was raining heavily, with a view to protect the goods, she has stored them in the nearby Marble Factory. Her husband has also gone to the village for fetching an auto for transporting them back to the fair-price shop premises. It is in this interregnum period, the stock was seized by the Revenue Officials suspecting foul play. When once it emerges that, the Route Officer, in view of the situation prevailing on that day has permitted the stocks to be unloaded at the bus stage of the village instead of at the fair-price shop premises, the extraordinary situation prevailing on the said day perhaps would have legitimately and justifiably lent support for such an action because, the other food-grains loaded in the truck are required to be delivered at various other fair-price shops also and in view of the inclement weather, the truck driver may have been reluctant to travel right up to the fair-price shop premises. In these set of circumstances, the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, restoring the authorization in principle in favour of the third respondent does not appear to be either arbitrary or fanciful. I do not wish to enter upon the aspect of legitimacy of imposing of fine amounting to Rs.10,000/-on the third respondent in the impugned order. It is for the third respondent to challenge the validity of that portion of the order before the Appellate Authority, in case the third respondent feels aggrieved by the same. I therefore have no hesitation to reject this writ petition. 11. However, one aspect which Sri Srinivas pleaded, deserves to be made a mention. He has pointed out that, there are as many as 397 Below Poverty Line Cards and 193 Temporary Ration Cards/New Ration Cards attached to the fair-price shop No.26, H. Kottala Village. He therefore pleads that, rationalization guidelines issued by the State Government through their G.O.Ms.No.35 Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS-1) Department dated 17.09.2007, should be applied. All I can say in this regard is that, it is open to the writ petitioner to make such a request to the first respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer, who will examine the feasibility of applying the rationalization principles and guidelines set out by the State Government through their G.O.Ms.No.35 Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS-1) Department dated 17.09.2007, and take appropriate decision in the matter within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such a request from the writ petitioner in that regard. 12. This writ petition is otherwise meritless and hence it is dismissed, but however, without costs.