Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 45 (AP)

Padagala Ramana v. State of A. P.

2020-01-23

U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

body2020
JUDGMENT : U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J. 1. The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not conducting enquiry under Section 6-A of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘EC Act’) and issuing proceedings in Rc. No. 249/2019/-GI, dated NIL.11.2019 till date by the 2nd respondent as illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction to set aside the said proceedings. 2. The petitioner's case, succinctly, is that originally Fair Price Shop No. 94 of Vizianagaram Town was allotted to 5th respondent and in the year 2014, the then Tahsildar, Vizianagaram took proceedings under Section 6-A of EC Act and suspended her dealership and as per the proceedings in Rc. No. 1145/2015/G, dated 30.06.2015, the Revenue Divisional Officer has appointed the petitioner as dealer for F.P Shop No. 94 purely on temporary basis. Subsequently, as per the order in Rc. No. 249/2019/-GI, dated NIL.11.2019, the Collector (CS), Vizianagaram has restored the authorization of 5th respondent in respect of F.P Shop No. 94 by imposing penalty of Rs. 7,500/-. Now the grievance of the petitioner is that the Collector (CS) has restored the dealership of 5th respondent without conducting any enquiry under the proceedings under Section 6-A of EC Act pending against her and, therefore, his order restoring her dealership is illegal, null and void. It is argued that in view of the discriminatory order passed by the Collector (CS), the petitioner was unceremoniously removed from her dealership. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Heard Sri. Gudapati Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, representing the respondents 1 to 4 and Sri. Bone Rama Shankar Rao, learned counsel for 5th respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would strenuously argue that though the petitioner was appointed as temporary dealer, since he is affected by the restoration of 5th respondent, he has locus to challenge the restoration order. Bone Rama Shankar Rao, learned counsel for 5th respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would strenuously argue that though the petitioner was appointed as temporary dealer, since he is affected by the restoration of 5th respondent, he has locus to challenge the restoration order. Taking the Court through the restoration order dated NIL.11.2019 passed by the Collector (CS), Vizianagaram, he would submit that except mentioning that no file belongs to the 5th respondent was pending in the office of Revenue Divisional Officer and that the High Court has issued orders to the Collector (CS) in W.P. No. 10970 of 2019 to dispose of the representation of the dealer dated 06.08.2018 and 17.04.2019, the Collector (CS) has not conducted any enquiry with regard to allegations against the 5th respondent under Section 6-A of EC Act, he straightaway passed order restoring the dealership of 5th respondent by imposing penalty of Rs. 7,500/-. He would thus argue that virtually the order is bereft of enquiry and hence, it is not legally sustainable. Regarding locus of the petitioner to challenge the said proceedings, he placed reliance on the Full Bench judgment of this Court in M. Vanaja vs. B. Balaseshanna and Others, (2008) 1 ALT 520 (F.B.). 5. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and learned counsel for 5th respondent, while supporting the impugned order would submit that as per the proceedings in Rc. No. 1145/2015/G, dated 30.06.2015, the Revenue Divisional Officer appointed the petitioner only as temporary dealer with the observation that such temporary dealership will not confer any right on her at the time of filling up the vacancy on regular basis and as such, now the petitioner cannot question the order of the Collector (CS) restoring the dealership of 5th respondent. They further argued that the Collector (CS) has every power to restore the dealership of 5th respondent. 6. Now, the point for consideration is: Whether the petitioner being temporary dealer of Fair Price Shop No. 94, has locus-standi to challenge the proceedings in Rc. No. 249/2019/-GI, dated NIL.11.2019 of the Collector (CS) restoring the dealership of 5th respondent? 7. Point: Admittedly, while initiating the proceedings against the 5th respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer in his proceedings in Rc. No. 1145/2015/G, dated 30.06.2015 appointed the petitioner as dealer of Fair Price Shop No. 94 purely on temporary basis. No. 249/2019/-GI, dated NIL.11.2019 of the Collector (CS) restoring the dealership of 5th respondent? 7. Point: Admittedly, while initiating the proceedings against the 5th respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer in his proceedings in Rc. No. 1145/2015/G, dated 30.06.2015 appointed the petitioner as dealer of Fair Price Shop No. 94 purely on temporary basis. The said order reads as if such entrustment of distribution on temporary basis shall not confer any right at the time of filing up the vacancy on regular basis. In that view, the question is whether the petitioner can challenge restoration of proceedings issued by the Collector (CS). This aspect is no more res integra, since as dealt with this issue in M. Vanaja's case (supra), the question before the Full Bench was whether a temporary fair price shop dealer falls within the ambit and scope of the expression "any aggrieved person" used in Clauses 20 and 21 of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001? Answering the same, the Full Bench has held in Para-26 thus: 26. If the expression "any person aggrieved" appearing in Clauses 20 and 21 is interpreted keeping in view the scheme of the Control Order, there cannot be any doubt that the said expression takes within its ambit a temporary fair price shop dealer and even a cardholder. The temporary fair price shop dealer is required to comply with all those conditions, which are applicable to a regular or a permanent fair price shop dealer. His/her functions are identical to that of regular/permanent fair price shop dealer. His authorisation can also be suspended or cancelled or altered in terms of Clause 5(4) of the Control Order. Once the authorisation of a permanent/regular fair price shop dealer is suspended or cancelled and a temporary fair price shop dealer is appointed in his/her place, the latter acquires a substantive interest to run the fair price shop. If the order of suspension or cancellation of authorisation of the regular/ permanent fair price shop dealer is stayed or set aside, the temporary fair price shop dealer is the immediate person who is adversely affected inasmuch as his right to operate the fair price shop will get stultified by restoration of the regular/permanent fair price shop dealer. If the order of suspension or cancellation of authorisation of the regular/ permanent fair price shop dealer is stayed or set aside, the temporary fair price shop dealer is the immediate person who is adversely affected inasmuch as his right to operate the fair price shop will get stultified by restoration of the regular/permanent fair price shop dealer. To put it differently, the authorisation of a temporary fair price shop dealer may not create a vested right in him, but he will certainly be a person affected by reinstatement of the regular/permanent fair price shop dealer and, therefore, he will certainly have the locus to question the reinstatement of the regular/permanent fair price shop dealer by filing an appeal under Clause 20 and revision under Clause 21, and we do not see any reason to give a restricted interpretation to the expression "any person aggrieved." It is quite possible to visualize a case in which the appellate authority may, without assigning any reason or for extraneous consideration, restore the authorisation of a permanent/regular fair price shop dealer despite the fact that he may have been found guilty of grave financial or other irregularities and gross violation of the conditions. If a narrow interpretation is placed on the expression "any person aggrieved" appearing in Clauses 20 and 21 and it is held that the temporary fair price shop dealer and/or the beneficiary of the public distribution system is not "an aggrieved person" then there will be none to challenge patently illegal or arbitrary order passed by the appellate authority. This will not at all be conducive to larger public interest. Even otherwise, we are convinced that the expression "any person aggrieved" appearing in Clauses 20 and 21 must, keeping in view the scheme of the Control Order, receive liberal construction so as to enable any affected or interested person to challenge the order made by the competent authority under Clause 5. Ultimately, the Full Bench answered the reference thus: 33. In the result, the reference is answered in the following terms: The expression "any person aggrieved" appearing in Clauses 20 and 21 of the Control Order comprehends within itself a temporary fair price shop dealer and the latter has locus to challenge an order made under Clause 5 or under Clause 20(1) or 20(2) of the Control Order by filing appeal or revision, as the case may be. 8. 8. In view of the above jurisprudential jurimetrics, there can be no scintilla of doubt that even a temporary dealer comes within the ambit of aggrieved person for the purpose of Clauses 20 and 21 of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001. That being so, the petitioner though a temporary dealer, however, being affected person due to restoration order can challenge the proceedings. In the above judgment, it was held that such temporary dealer can file appeal/revision, as against the order impugned. In view of the available efficacious remedy, without expressing any opinion on merits and demerits of the impugned order passed by the Collector (CS), this Court is of the considered view that a liberty can be given to the petitioner to take up the matter by filing appeal/revision, as the case may be, before the concerned authority. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the proceedings in Rc. No. 249/2019/-GI, dated NIL.11.2019 of the Collector (CS), Vizianagaram by filing appeal/revision before the concerned authority within four weeks from the date of this order, in which case, the said authority shall conduct an enquiry and after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner as well as to 5th respondent, pass an appropriate order in accordance with governing law and Rules expeditiously, but not later than two months from the date of filing of the appeal/revision by the petitioner. No costs. 10. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.