Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1101 (AP)

N. Santha Kumari v. Govt Of A. P.

2022-10-20

BATTU DEVANAND

body2022
ORDER : The present Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “to declare the Orders of the 2nd respondent in RC.No.11/2009-S7, dated 04.12.2009 setting aside the orders of the 3rd respondent in A.C.D.Dis.No.17/2008-S7, dated 31.03.2009 restoring the authorization to distribute essential commodities in favour of the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.” 2. Heard Sri V.V.L.N. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Sri P.Roy Reddy, learned counsel for the Respondent No.5. 3. The case of the petitioner is that she is the Fair Price Shop Dealer of Kubadpuram Village, Rajupalem Mandal, Guntur District, and she has been running the said shop for the last one decade without any complaint from anybody. On 28.04.2003, the respondent No.4 came to his shop and took away the original sales and stock registers, authorization etc. Later, he obtained a report from the Deputy Tahsildar (CS) that there is a variation of 1.58 quintals of rice etc., A variation of 1.5 Kgs is permissible. The said report is purported to have been submitted to the 4th respondent recommending for initiation of disciplinary action against the petitioner. A copy of the report was not given to the petitioner to enable the petitioner to explain the facts. The 4th respondent, without conducting any preliminary enquiry, issued Proceedings in Rc.No.981-A/2003- G, dated 20.04.2003, suspending the authorization of the petitioner. A show cause notice, dated 20.04.2003 was also issued. The petitioner could not submit her explanation as she was suffering from Jaundice and was taking medical treatment under the care of Dr. Narra Venkateswara Rao. Thereupon, the 4th respondent passed Orders, dated 25.06.2003, in D.Dis.No.981-A/2003-G, cancelling the authorization of the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent authorities appointed the 5th respondent as Fair Price Shop dealer on temporary basis. Aggrieved by the Orders of the Respondent No.4, she filed Appeal No.32/2003 before the 3rd respondent. As the 3rd respondent did not pass any orders even after one year, she filed W.P.No.4683 of 2004 before this Court. This Court, by Order dated 12.03.2004, directed the 3rd respondent to dispose of the Appeal within Six weeks. Aggrieved by the Orders of the Respondent No.4, she filed Appeal No.32/2003 before the 3rd respondent. As the 3rd respondent did not pass any orders even after one year, she filed W.P.No.4683 of 2004 before this Court. This Court, by Order dated 12.03.2004, directed the 3rd respondent to dispose of the Appeal within Six weeks. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent passed orders in A.C.D.Dis.No.32/2003-S7, dated 15.05.2004, directing the 4th respondent to permit the petitioner to present her views, and accordingly, the petitioner submitted her detailed explanation to the show cause notice to the 4th respondent. 4. It is the further case of the petitioner that thereafter the 4th respondent passed Orders in D.Dis.No.2281/2003-G, dated 10.06.2004, again cancelling the authorization of the petitioner, without any application of mind and without any regard to the material on record. Aggrieved by the said Order, she filed Appeal No.41/2003 before the 3rd respondent. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent by Order dated 09.03.2005 dismissed the said appeal. Aggrieved by the orders of the 3rd respondent dated 09.03.2005, she filed Revision Petition No.18 of 2005 before the 2nd respondent. Aggrieved by the inaction of the 2nd respondent in not disposing the Revision Petition, she again filed W.P.No.20899 of 2005 before this Court. This Court by order dated 14.11.2007 allowed the said Writ Petition and remanded the matter to the 3rd respondent and directed him to give an opportunity to the petitioner and hear and make appropriate orders. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent passed Orders in A.C.D.Dis.No.17/2008-S7, dated 31.03.2009, setting aside the orders of the respondent No.4. 5. It is the further case of the petitioner that thereafter the 4th respondent issued Orders in Rc.No.1105/20070 G, dated 26.06.2009, permitting the petitioner to distribute essential commodities to the card holders. Thereafter, the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.43,000/- on 25.06.2009 for release of essential commodities and the same were supplied to her shop for distribution to the card holders. While the matter stood thus, on 2.08.2009 at about 10.30 am, the respondent authorities came to her shop and took way the entire stock, purporting to be pursuant to the impugned Orders of the 2nd respondent dated 01.08.2009, and handed over the said stock to the respondent No.5. Later, she came to know about the orders of the respondent No.2 dated 01.08.2009, granting stay on the orders of the 3rd respondent in the Revision filed by the 5th respondent. Later, she came to know about the orders of the respondent No.2 dated 01.08.2009, granting stay on the orders of the 3rd respondent in the Revision filed by the 5th respondent. Aggrieved by the said Orders of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner filed W.P.No.16018 of 2009 before this Court. This Court, by Order dated 19.08.2009, directed the 2nd respondent to decide the revision. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent passed Orders in Revision Case No.11/2009-S7 on 04.12.2009, reversing the orders of the 3rd respondent in ACD Dis.No.17/2008, dated 31.03.2009. Aggrieved by the said Orders, the petitioner once again constrained to approach this Hon’ble High Court through the present Writ Petition. 6. It is the further case of the petitioner that initially her authorization was placed under suspension and later it was cancelled in the year 2003. The respondent authorities, without any notification, an application dated 18.06.2004 of the respondent No.5 was received and appointed her through Proceedings in Rc.No.2281/2004-G, dated 18.07.2004 as Fair Price Shop Dealer on temporary basis. The Revision Petition filed by the respondent No.5 appears to have been filed on 15.07.2009 beyond the period of limitation. The appointment of Respondent No.5 itself is against the procedure contemplated under law. Therefore, the Writ Petition constrained to file the present Writ Petition. 7. Defendant No.4 filed Counter Affidavit contending that on receipt of complaints from the card holders against the petitioner, he ordered the CSDT, Krosur, to inspect the Fair Price shop of the petitioner and accordingly, he inspected the shop of the petitioner on 20.04.2003 and submitted his report. In the report, he clearly stated that the petitioner committed certain illegalities in distributing the commodities to the card holders. Basing on the said report, he initially suspended the authorization of the petitioner and thereafter, cancelled the same. Thereafter, the respondent authorities appointed the 5th respondent as Fair Price Shop dealer on temporary basis. Against the said cancellation Order, the Writ Petitioner approached the respondent No.3/Joint Collector. The respondent No.3 passed orders setting aside the orders passed by the respondent No.4. Thereafter, the petitioner paid amount to the respondent authorities to lift essential commodities and they in-turn handed over the essential commodities to the petitioner to distribute the same to the card holder. At that stage, the respondent No.5 approached the 2nd respondent challenging the order of the 3rd respondent in restoring the authorization of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner paid amount to the respondent authorities to lift essential commodities and they in-turn handed over the essential commodities to the petitioner to distribute the same to the card holder. At that stage, the respondent No.5 approached the 2nd respondent challenging the order of the 3rd respondent in restoring the authorization of the petitioner. The 2nd respondent granted stay in the revision filed by the 5th respondent. Thereafter, the respondent authorities had taken back the essential commodities from the petitioner basing on the orders of the 2nd respondent. As such, there is no illegality in the action of the official respondent and therefore, he prayed to dismiss the petition. 8. Basing on the report of the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, Krosur, dated 20.04.2003, the respondent No.4 suspended the authorization of the petitioner on 20.04.2003 and also issued a show cause notice to the petitioner calling for her explanation for the charges leveled against her. As the Fair Price Shop dealer did not submit her explanation within the stipulated time, the respondent No.4 cancelled the authorization of the petitioner vide Proceedings in Rc.No.981-A/2003-G, dated 25.06.2003. Aggrieved by the suspension Orders, the petitioner filed an appeal before the respondent No.3 and requested to grant stay. The respondent No.3 disposed of the appeal by Order dated 15.05.2004, directing the respondent No.4 to give an opportunity to the petitioner for presenting her views in the case. Accordingly, the respondent No.4 has given opportunity by way of Notice dated 23.05.2004 to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted her explanation on 27.05.2004. On considering the same, the respondent No.4 has cancelled the authorization of the petitioner vide Proceedings dated 10.06.2004. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Respondent No.3 and the said appeal was dismissed by Order dated 09.03.2005. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Revision Petition before the Respondent No.2. The said Revision was dismissed by Order 25.08.2005. Aggrieved by the said Order, the petitioner filed W.P.No.20899 of 2005 before the High Court. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by Order dated 14.11.2007, setting aside the Orders of the cancellation of authorization of the petitioner vide Orders dated 10.06.2004, which was confirmed by the appellate authority and the Revisional Authority and remanded the matter to the respondent No.3 with a direction to give an opportunity to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by Order dated 14.11.2007, setting aside the Orders of the cancellation of authorization of the petitioner vide Orders dated 10.06.2004, which was confirmed by the appellate authority and the Revisional Authority and remanded the matter to the respondent No.3 with a direction to give an opportunity to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. After hearing, the respondent No.3 set aside the cancellation of authorization of the petitioner made by the Respondent No.4 by Order dated 10.06.2004 and the appeal was allowed on 31.03.2009 holding that the charge leveled against the petitioner are not grave in nature and also reasonable opportunity was not given to the petitioner by the respondent No.4. Against the said Order, the respondent No.5, who was appointed as temporary dealer during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, filed a Revision Petition before the Respondent No.2 and the respondent No.2 has taken the Revision Petition on 01.08.2009 and granted stay on the Orders of the respondent No.3. Aggrieved by the Orders of the respondent No.2 in Revision, the Petitioner filed W.P.No.16018 of 2009 and it was disposed of by Order dated 19.08.2009, directing the revisional authority to dispose of the revision on the next date of hearing. Accordingly, the respondent No.2 heard the arguments of both sides and on perusal of the connected records, passed the impugned Order dated 04.12.2009 allowing the revision petition filed by the Respondent No.5 by setting aside the Orders of the Respondent No.3 dated 31.03.2009. 9. On careful perusal of the entire material on record, it appears the respondent No.3, who is the Joint Collector, passed Orders in appeal on 31.03.2009 considering all aspects in a proper way. But, the respondent No.2/District Collector set aside the same in the revision petition filed by the respondent No.5. In fact, the respondent No.5 is appointed as temporary dealer to distribute the essential commodities to the card holders during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner only. As and when the disciplinary proceedings comes to an end and the original fair price shop dealer succeeds in the disciplinary proceedings, the respondent No.5 is not entitled to come in the way of the original Fair Price Shop dealer. As and when the disciplinary proceedings comes to an end and the original fair price shop dealer succeeds in the disciplinary proceedings, the respondent No.5 is not entitled to come in the way of the original Fair Price Shop dealer. But, the respondent No.2 surprisingly observed in the impugned Order that the Revision Petitioner has distributed the essential commodities to the card holders without any inconvenience and no such case was booked against her. He also stated that the respondent No.1 therein/ the petitioner herein, is trying to take over the Fair Price Shop from the revision Petitioner/Respondent No.5 herein in any means. The said observation of the respondent No.2 is perverse and made without any application of mind. On bare reading of the operative portion of the impugned Order, it appears that only to do undue favour to the revision petitioner, the respondent No.2 allowed the Revision Petition without considering the facts and circumstances of the case in a proper perspective and passed orders the impugned Order not in accordance with law. As such, in our considered view, the Order impugned in this Writ Petition is unsustainable and untenable and is liable to be set aside. 10. In view of the interim orders passed by this Court, it appears, the petitioner is continuing as on today as Fair Price Shop dealer. As such, the respondents have to continue the petitioner as Fair Price Shop dealer as usual. 11. With the above said reasons, the present Writ Petition is allowed with the following directions: i) The Order, dated 04.12.2009 passed by the Respondent No.2 in R.C.No.11 of 2009-S7 is set aside; and ii) The respondents are directed to continue the petitioner as Fair Price Shop Deader of Kubadpuram Village, Rajupalem Mandal, Guntur District, as usual. 12. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this writ petition shall stand closed.