Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 707 (TS)

Badavath Sarada v. State of Telangana

2024-09-09

K.SARATH

body2024
ORDER : K.Sarath, J. This Petition is filed questioning the order vide Rc.No.D/3666/2015 dated 27.02.2017, issued by the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer with regard to the cancellation of authorization of the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop No.35028, Sarvaram Village, Sujatha Nagar of Bhadradri Kothagudem District. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for respondents and perused the material on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been appointed as Fair Price Shop Dealer for F.P.Shop No.35028, Sarvaram Village, Sujatha Nagar of Bhadradri Kothagudem District, since 1993. While it being so, a show-cause notice dated 08.12.2016 was issued to the petitioner with regard to cancel the authorization of the petitioner on the ground that husband of the petitioner is a Government employee. In response to the same, the petitioner has submitted her explanation dated 29.12.2016 to the respondent No.2. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per G.O.Ms.No.12 dated 06.03.2012, the respondent No.2 has issued another show-cause notice dated 07.02.2017 on the ground that the family members of the employees working in Girijana Cooperative Corporation are also not entitled for any dealership. In response to the same, the petitioner has submitted her detailed explanation dated 14.02.2017 to the respondent No.2 and stated that her husband has been employed in the Girijana Cooperative Corporation from the year, 1987. According to G.O.Ms.No.12, dated 06.03.2012, the department of Girijana Cooperative Corporation was not indicated directly and Girijana Cooperative Corporation is a State Government Public Sector undertaking and will run some FP Shops in Agency areas under the guidelines of Revenue Authorities and the Girijana Cooperative Corporation of the employees cannot influence the PDS system in any manner. On contrary to the explanation given by the petitioner, the respondent No.2 has directly issued the present impugned order dated 27.02.2017 and cancelled the authorization without providing any opportunity to her and the action of the respondents is illegal and arbitrary, thereby, requested this Court to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order dated 27.02.2017 and restore the authorization of the petitioner as fair price shop dealer. 5. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents, basing on the counter affidavit, submits that the petitioner herself admitted that her husband is working as an employee in Girijana Cooperative Corporation and the Manager, GPCMs Ltd., Palvancha has also confirmed the same. As per the provisions contained in G.O.Ms.No.12, dated 06.03.2012, the Family members of employees working in Girijana Cooperative Corporation are also ineligible for Fair Price Shop Dealership. Moreover, the aforementioned Corporation comes under the administrative control of Tribal Welfare Department. 6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies further submits that as per Clause 4(4) of Annexure-I of TSPDS (Control) Order, 2016, the authorization issued under the order shall be liable for suspension or cancellation. After careful examination, the cancellation orders 27.02.2017 have been issued to the petitioner. Both the show-cause notices issued to the petitioner were for calling explanation on the complaint petitions and violations observed therein by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kothagudem in Rc.No.D/3666/2015 dated 08.12.2016 and 07.02.2017. In view of the same, there is no valid grounds and requested to dismiss the same. 7. After hearing both sides, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is appointed as Fair Price Shop dealer for Fair Price Shop No.35028, Sarvaram Village, Sujatha Nagar of Bhadradri Kothagudem District from the year, 1993. While it being so, a show-cause notice dated 08.12.2016 was issued to the petitioner to cancel the authorization of the petitioner on the ground that husband of the petitioner is a Government employee. Thereafter, as per G.O.Ms.No.12 dated 06.03.2012, the respondent No.2 had issued another show-cause notice dated 07.02.2017 on the ground that the family members of the employees working in Girijana Cooperative Corporation are also not entitled for any dealership. In response to the same, the petitioner has submitted her detailed explanation dated 14.02.2017 to the respondent No.2 and stated that her husband has been employed in the Girijana Cooperative Corporation since 1987 and on contrary to the explanation given by the petitioner, the respondent No.2 had directly issued the impugned order dated 27.02.2017 and cancelled the authorization without providing any opportunity, on the ground that husband of the petitioner is a Government employee. 8. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner is appointed as Fair Price Shop Dealer in the year, 1993 and at the time of appointment, G.O.Ms.No.12, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS.I) Department, dated 06.03.2012 not in existence, as such, the respondents did not take into account the conditions stipulated in the said Government Order for cancellation of authorization of the petitioner on the ground that the husband of the petitioner is a Government employee. 9. A similar issue is considered by this Court in J.Prameela V. District Collector, Adilabad District 2012 (5) ALT 669 and the relevant paragraphs of the aforementioned Judgement are read as follows: “8.But, at the same time, the State Government does not seem to have taken a decision to completely debar close relatives of Government servants from being appointed as fair-price shop dealers. If really the State Government intended to prevent close relatives of Government servants to be appointed as fair-price shop dealers, there was no necessity for the Government to couch the instructions in the manner in which it has, as noticed supra. A simple and straightforward sentence such as ";close relatives of Government employees cannot be appointed as fairprice shop dealers": would have conveyed the notion clearly. But, instead, the State Government preferred to qualify their statement by using 'specially those working in Civil Supplies Department, Revenue Department or the Civil Supplies Corporation or the Village Administrative Officer of the Village', shall not be appointed as a fair-price shop dealer. This later part of the clause in fact, holds the key for understanding the contours of the policy which the Government contemplated for not appointing close relatives of the Government employees. It is discernible clearly that, the Government wanted to ensure that, close relatives of those who are working in Civil Supplies Department, Revenue Department and the Civil Supplies Corporation or the Village Administrative Officer of the Village concerned shall not be appointed. Perhaps, the close relatives of Government employees, other than the above referred categories, are not intended to be prevented from being appointed.” 9. xxx 10. xxx “11. Therefore, the fact that, the writ petitioner's husband is employed as a teacher with the Zilla Parishad High School cannot be treated as an absolute bar for her selection or bar for her appointment as a fair-price shop dealer. xxx 10. xxx “11. Therefore, the fact that, the writ petitioner's husband is employed as a teacher with the Zilla Parishad High School cannot be treated as an absolute bar for her selection or bar for her appointment as a fair-price shop dealer. By using the expression ";Specially"; in Clause 12(3) of the guidelines, the bar contemplated is not an absolute one but is only a preferable one. As the writ petitioner was selected at the regular selections, it is obvious that, she has been picked up as she is the most meritorious and deserving. Assuming that, she is the only one candidate who had applied for dealership, even then, her appointment as a fair-price shop dealer made on 05.08.2005 should not have been interdicted at all subsequently thereto. Above all, the writ petitioner claimed to be a member belonging to schedule tribe. The State Government on a top priority basis is endeavoring its very best to improve upon the lot of scheduled tribes. It, therefore, stands to reason that the appointment of the writ petitioner as a fair-price shop dealer at Utnoor should not be interdicted.” 10. The above Judgment is squarely apply to the instant case as the husband of the petitioner is also working in the Girijana Cooperative Corporation. In view of the same, the respondents cannot cancel the authorization of the petitioner as Fair Price Shop Dealer on the ground that the petitioner’s husband is working in the Girijana Cooperative Corporation. The petitioner has appointed in the year, 1993 as per rules as on that date and the respondents cannot taking into account of G.O.Ms.No.12, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS.I) Department, dated 06.03.2012, which is prospective in nature. In view of the same, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside as the same are arbitrary and illegal. 11. In view of the above findings, the writ petition is allowed, by setting aside the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.D/3666/2015 dated 27.02.2017 passed by the respondent No.2-Revenue Divisional Officer and directing the respondent No.2 to restore the authorization of the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop Dealership for the Fair Price Shop No.35028, Sarvaram Village, Sujatha Nagar of Bhadradri Kothagudem District. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.