Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 616 (AP)

Karri Bhaskara Rao v. District Collector

2012-07-18

NOUSHAD ALI

body2012
Judgment :- 1) Order of the District Collector, Visakhapatnam, the 1st Respondent herein, dated 01-12-2007 passed in R.P.No.6/2007/CSR-7, setting aside the appointment of the petitioner as a fair price shop dealer, is challenged in this Writ Petition. Appointment has been set aside on the ground that the petitioner is the son of a Central Government employee and it is a disqualification as per the guidelines issued by the State Government in G.O.Ms.No.53, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (C.B.I.) Department, dated 6.10.2003. 2) Applications were invited from eligible candidates for appointment of a fair price shop dealer on permanent basis for shop No.309, Vadlapudi of Visakhapatnam City, vide Notification Rc.No.348/2005 CSC-1, dated 24-12-2005. The petitioner herein and respondent No.4 were among the applicants. The petitioner is a resident of Ward No.28 in which the shop is to be located, whereas the 4th respondent is the resident of Ward No.37. The District Supply Officer (City), FAC, Visakhapatnam, conducted interview on 06-06-2006 and selected the 4th Respondent herein as the dealer vide proceedings Rc.No.348/2005 CSC-1, dated 07-06-2006. The petitioner was not selected on the ground that he had not given satisfactory replies to the questions posed to him on the Public Distribution System and other matters and that his father is working in Dockyard, whereas the 4th Respondent had answered the questions satisfactorily. Thus, the 4th Respondent was selected, though he is not the resident of ward No.28. 3) Against the said orders, the petitioner filed an appeal being A.C.No.7/2006 CSR-7 before the Joint Collector (FAC) Visakhapatnam, the 2nd Respondent herein. The Joint Collector allowed the appeal by orders dated 25-07-2007 holding that a resident of the ward in which the shop is located is entitled to be appointed in preference to a nonresident as per the guidelines issued by the State Government and accordingly set aside the appointment of the 4th Respondent and appointed the petitioner as the dealer. 4) The 4th Respondent, being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of the Joint Collector, preferred a Revision Petition to the District Collector, Visakhapatnam, the 1st Respondent herein. The 1st Respondent-District Collector set aside the orders of the Joint Collector and restored the orders of the District Supply Officer confirming the appointment of the 4th Respondent. 4) The 4th Respondent, being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of the Joint Collector, preferred a Revision Petition to the District Collector, Visakhapatnam, the 1st Respondent herein. The 1st Respondent-District Collector set aside the orders of the Joint Collector and restored the orders of the District Supply Officer confirming the appointment of the 4th Respondent. The District Collector reversed the orders of the Joint Collector on the ground that the petitioner is disqualified for appointment as his father is a Central Government Employee, as per the guidelines issued by the State Government in G.O.Ms.No.53, dated 06-10-2003. It is against this order the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition. 5) Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the petitioner is a resident of the same ward where the shop is to be located, hence he ought to have been appointed in preference to the 4th Respondent, who is a resident of a different ward. He would urge that the petitioner does not suffer disqualification, though he is the son of a Central Government employee. According to him, the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.53, dated 06-10-2003 postulate disqualification in the case of State Government employees’ relatives and they do not postulate covering relatives of Central Government employees. 6) Smt. Dyumani, learned counsel appearing for the 4th Respondent would refute the aforesaid contentions and urge that close relatives of Government employees, whether employed in State Government services or Central Government services, are disqualified for appointment. Both the employees stand on the same footing insofar as the disqualification, therefore no distinction is postulated in the guidelines giving exemption to the relatives of the Central Government employees. She would therefore contend that the 4th Respondent, who alone remained in the field with the required qualification, was rightly appointed, though he is the resident of a different ward. 7) In the light of the aforesaid contentions, the core issue that falls for consideration is Whether an applicant, who is closely related to a Central Government employee, is disqualified for appointment as a fair price shop dealer. 7) In the light of the aforesaid contentions, the core issue that falls for consideration is Whether an applicant, who is closely related to a Central Government employee, is disqualified for appointment as a fair price shop dealer. 8) Government of Andhra Pradesh, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and in terms of the Order of Government of India GSR 630 (E), dated 31-08-2001, issued a Control Order viz., “A.P. Public Distribution System (Control Order), 2001 (hereinafter referred to as, “Control Order”), (which was in force at the relevant time) for regulating supply of essential commodities through Public Distribution System. 9) Issue of authorizations for distribution of essential commodities through Public Distribution System on behalf of the State Government is the object underlying the Control Order, 2001. Clause-5 of the Control Order provides that an appointing authority may issue authorization with a view to control and ensure proper distribution of scheduled commodities through fair price shops owned by the State Government or any State Government undertaking or any public institution or persons etc., which reads as follows : “5. Issue of Authorisation to Fair Price Shops and Establishment:- (1) With a view to controlling and ensuring proper distribution of scheduled commodities owned by the State Government, the appointing authority may issue authorizations to fair price shops owned by the State Government or any State Government undertaking or any public institution or persons including women or Development of Women and Children in Rural Areas group (DWCRA) or registered Women voluntary consumer organizations or thrift groups like Podupu Lakshmi or Co-operative societies which are run exclusively by women (which have only women as members) either wholly or partly, subject to such preferences and reservations as may be prescribed by Government from time to time in this regard to obtain and supply scheduled commodities in accordance with the provisions of this order: 10) The words, “scheduled commodities owned by the State Government”, “fair price shops owned by the State Government or any State Government undertaking etc.,” are significant and make it abundantly clear that authorizations, which are meant for running fair price shops and essential commodities belong to the State Government. In other words, the State Government has dominant ownership on the fair price shops and the distribution of essential commodities controlled through issue of authorisations. In other words, the State Government has dominant ownership on the fair price shops and the distribution of essential commodities controlled through issue of authorisations. Clause10 makes it further clear that every supply document viz., authorization, supply card or any other document of purchasing, selling or distribution of essential commodities shall be the property of the State Government and the person to whom it is issued is only a custodian. 11) The State Government issued guidelines for giving effect to the provisions of Clause (5), in G.O.Ms.No.53, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (C.B.I.) Department, dated 06-10-2003. 12) Clause (12) has laid down the general conditions and disqualifications relating to appointment of fair price shop dealers. The said clause, to the extent relevant, is extracted below : “12. GENERAL: (i) All individuals holding any Public Office like Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, President of Mandal Praja Parishad, Chairman of Zilla Praja Parishad, Presidents of Cooperative Societies, Councillors or Chairman of Municipality, Members of Zilla Parishad Territorial Constituency (ZPTC) etc., “irrespective of the reservation shall not be eligible; (ii) Every F.P. Shop Dealer should give an undertaking to the appointing authority concerned that he/she will relinquish the dealership if he/she is elected to any public office; (iii) Close relative of “Government employees” specially those working in Civil Supplies Department or Revenue Department or the Civil Supplies Corporation or Village Administrative Officer of the village shall not be appointed as FP Shop dealers. (iv) to (xviii) xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx” 13) In this case we are concerned with guideline No.12(iii). The said clause states that “close relatives of Government Employees”, with an emphasis on the employees of Civil Supplies Department or Revenue Department or the Civil Supplies Corporation or Village Administrative Officer, are not eligible for appointment. The said clause has not specifically indicated that relatives of all employees including those in Central Government services and State Government services are disqualified. The words “Government employees” are generically words used in the clause. Plainly these generically used words may indicate as covering both Central and State Government employees. However, in all cases the true meaning of the generic words used in a statute cannot be taken on face value reading them in isolation of the statute. The words have to be understood in the context and objects sought to be achieved by the statute. However, in all cases the true meaning of the generic words used in a statute cannot be taken on face value reading them in isolation of the statute. The words have to be understood in the context and objects sought to be achieved by the statute. 14) Therefore a traverse of the Control Order is necessary to find out the real meaning of the words “Government Employees”. The Control Order provides ample ground in this direction. The word “State Government” is defined in Clause 2, meaning “the Government of the State of Andhra Pradesh”. But the said word is not uniformly used in the Order, instead the word “Government” is used at several places. The word “Government” is found in Clauses 5 (1), (2), Clause 7, Clause 8 (iii), Clause 9, Clause 16, Clause 17, Clause 18 and Clause 22. In all these clauses, though the word “Government” alone is used without the prefix of the word “State”, it is contextually meant only the “State Government” but not Central Government. 15) Clause 5(1) which relates to the power of the appointing authority to issue authorisations subject to such preferences and reservations as may be prescribed by “Government”. In the proviso authorisations granted under sub-section (1) shall cease to be valid when the “Government” undertake running of the fair price shop either by themselves or through a Government undertaking or a corporation wholly owned by the “Government”. Clause 5(2), which relates to trade deposit towards security for the due performance of the conditions of the authorisation, provides that the deposit that would be forfeited as a result of departmental action shall be paid to the “Government”. Proviso thereto prescribes that in the case of a dealer, who is exempted from payment of security deposit, is liable for penalty imposed either by the “Government” or the disciplinary authority. 16) Clause 7 is another important provision, which has prohibited sale of scheduled commodities except at such prices as may be specified by the “Government” in this behalf. 17) Similarly Clause 8, which relates to issue of supply cards, provides that “the Government” or the Collector or Mandal Revenue Officer or Assistant Supply Officer or any Officer authorised by the “Government” or by the Collector are authorised to cancel or suspend etc., the supply cards. 17) Similarly Clause 8, which relates to issue of supply cards, provides that “the Government” or the Collector or Mandal Revenue Officer or Assistant Supply Officer or any Officer authorised by the “Government” or by the Collector are authorised to cancel or suspend etc., the supply cards. 18) Clause 9 provides that the “Government” may make regulations providing for the conditions subject to which scheduled commodities may be supplied or obtained for household consumption and the relevant functions. 19) Clause 16 provides that the “Government” is the competent authority besides the Collector or the Appointing Authorities etc., is competent to authorise an officer to inspect stocks of scheduled commodities, supply documents or books etc. 20) Under Clause 17 a fair price shop dealer, who is found to be in possession of supply cards or draws commodities by making false entries of card numbers, shall pay loss to the “Government calculated as the differences between the market rate and public distribution system rate. 21) In Clause 18 power to authorise an officer for the purpose of taking delivery of supply cards or other supply documents and particulars relating to the dealings of the fair price shop, is vested in the “Government”. 22) Under Clause 22(iv) the scale of issue and the price of each commodity as fixed by the “Government” should be exhibited by the fair price shop dealer at a conspicuous place in the business premises. 23) Thus in all the aforesaid clauses the word “Government” alone is used but not “State Government”. Nonetheless, the said word has to be read as only “State Government”, because in Clause 5(1) it is the State Government alone which can prescribe preferences or reservations in the matter of grant of authorisations. Again in the proviso it is the State Government alone which can undertake running a fair price shop if an authorisation ceases to be valid. Similarly, it is the “State Government” alone in whose favour the security deposit should be forfeited as provided in Clause 5(2). Again it can only be the “State Government” which can prescribe the prices of essential commodities under Clause 7 and under Clause 8(iii) it is only the “State Government, which can take disciplinary action against the supply card. Framing of regulations can be made only by the “State Government” under Clause 9. Again it can only be the “State Government” which can prescribe the prices of essential commodities under Clause 7 and under Clause 8(iii) it is only the “State Government, which can take disciplinary action against the supply card. Framing of regulations can be made only by the “State Government” under Clause 9. The Inspection Officers can be appointed only by the “State Government” under Clause 16 and penalty amounts collected shall be paid only to the “State Government” under Clause 17. Appointment of an officer for collection of supply cards and other documents, and fixation of scale of issue and price of commodities shall be fixed only by State Government under Clauses 18 and 22 respectively. None of the aforesaid clauses can be construed as meaning the Central Government. 24) Guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.53, dated 6.10.2003 are subordinate to the Control order which is the parent statute. Hence the guidelines should be consistent with the parent statute and cannot have the effect of overriding the provisions of parent statute. It is already noticed that the State Government has the dominant ownership and control over the Fair Price Shops as per Clause 5(1) and 10, and that clauses 7, 8, 9, 16, 17, 18 and 22 (iv) mean only the State Government, though the word “Government” alone is used in these clauses. Thus the words “Government employee” used in the G.O.Ms.No.53, dated 06-10-2003 must be understood in the aforesaid context. If so construed, it is difficult to give a wider meaning to the said words as covering Central Government employees also. The categories, viz., Civil Supplies Department, Revenue Department, Civil Supplies Corporation, Village Administrative Officer, who are made ineligible in Sub-Clause-(iii) of Clause 12 of G.O.Ms.No. 53, dated 06-10-2003 because they are directly connected with the affairs of the State Government, would lend support to the view that the prohibition is intended only in relation to State Government employees and not the Central Government employees. 25) The possible reasons behind prohibiting the relatives of State Government employees are not far to seek. No Government employee shall engage directly or indirectly in any trade or business except in the course of his official duties and if he does so, it is a misconduct under the A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. 25) The possible reasons behind prohibiting the relatives of State Government employees are not far to seek. No Government employee shall engage directly or indirectly in any trade or business except in the course of his official duties and if he does so, it is a misconduct under the A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Therefore, it is difficult to assume that the State Government would permit their employees to run fair price shops through relatives and expose them to disciplinary action under the Conduct Rules unlike the Central Government employees on whom the State Government has no jurisdiction. Further more, another reason could be that it would avoid the possible influence of the State Government employees in the sanctioning and functioning of fair price shops. 26) In the analysis as above, I am inclined to hold that Clause 12(iii) prohibits close relatives of State Government employees only and not the Central Government employees. Consequently it must be held that the petitioner cannot be disqualified for appointment as a fair price shop dealer. 27) Though I have held that the petitioner is not disqualified, authorisation cannot be straightaway granted to him in this writ petition because the District Collector, who is the revisional authority, has not gone into the intersemerits of the petitioner and the 4th respondent herein. There was no occasion for the District Collector to examine the correctness of the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer and Joint Collector with reference to the merits of the petitioner vis-à-vis the merits of the 4th respondent herein as he had treated the petitioner as disqualified. In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to remand the matter for fresh consideration. 28) Accordingly the order of the District Collector R.P.No.6/2007/CSR7, dated 01.12.2007 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the District Collector, who shall consider the matter afresh; and having regard to the merits and demerits of the petitioner and the 4th respondent herein, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. It is directed that until orders are passed status quo as on today shall be maintained. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.