Back
Can't Hold Two Posts Together: Upholds Cancellation Fair Price Dealer's Authorization
In a significant ruling, the has upheld the cancellation of a fair price shop dealer’s authorization after he was elected as a Sarpanch (village head), holding that the dual position violates the . Justice Ravi Cheemalapati, sitting as a single judge, dismissed a filed by R.G. Maddilety, the dealer of Shop No. 1318026 in K. Markapuram village, Kurnool district, challenging the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Joint Collector.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, a permanent fair price shop dealer, had his authorization suspended and later cancelled following an inspection on . A team led by the Tahsildar and Village Revenue Officer found variations in stock—shortages of PDS fortified rice, red gram, and jowar, and excesses of midday meal items. A dated framed two charges: first, the stock variation amounted to malpractice, violating ; and second, the dealer was found to be acting as Sarpanch, contravening the specific prohibition in dated . Despite the petitioner’s explanation, the Revenue Divisional Officer cancelled the authorization, and the Joint Collector dismissed his appeal. Aggrieved, the dealer moved the High Court.
Arguments on Both Sides
Appearing for the petitioner, argued that the orders were passed in violation of , without proper consideration of his explanation. He claimed the inspection was illegal as the shop was locked, and that the authorities, aware of his Sarpanch candidature earlier, had not objected then, so they could not now penalize him. The counsel also alleged political pressure and vengeance.
On the other hand, the State’s Assistant Government Pleader, , defended the orders, pointing out that the dealer had indeed held a public office while holding the authorization, a clear breach of the eligibility conditions. The impleaded cardholder, respondent No.5, through , contended that the dealer’s failure to properly distribute essential commodities was the reason the matter was reported.
The Court’s Analysis and Reasoning
Justice Ravi Cheemalapati meticulously examined the relevant provisions. The court noted that categorically states:
“All individuals holding any Public Office like Sarpanch... shall not be eligible”
for fair price shop authorization. Further, mandates that every dealer
“shall not hold any office in public life, with or without remuneration.”
The judge emphasized that the petitioner could not claim ignorance; he was required to resign from one position upon election to the other. The court observed that the authorities were justified in cancelling the authorization on the sole ground of the dealer holding the post of Sarpanch, rendering the stock variation charge almost incidental. The judge stated that no violation of was established, as the was issued, and explanation received, even if the decision did not go in his favor.
Key Observations
The order contains several notable observations that crystallize the legal prohibition:
“All individuals holding any Public Office like Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, President of Mandal Praja Parshad... shall not be eligible;” ()
“Once he has elected as Sarpanch, either he has to resign the dealership or he has to resign the Sarpanch post.”
“Every authorized fair price shop dealer/nominated retailer/hawker shall only conduct the business and he/she shall: (e) not hold any office in public life, with or without remuneration.” (Clause 17(e), Control Order 2018)
“In view of the above provisions referred , the petitioner has not made out any case warranting interference. The authorities have rightly dealt with the case and he being a Sarpanch, his authorization cannot be continued...”
Dismissal of the Petition and Its Impact
Consequently, the High Court dismissed the , holding that there was no merit in the challenge. The , if any, were vacated, and the cancellation of the dealer’s authorization was affirmed. This judgment reinforces the strict prohibition on holding a public office and a fair price shop dealership simultaneously under the AP State Targeted Public Distribution System framework. For those in similar dual roles, the ruling serves as a clear warning: the law does not permit simultaneous occupancy, and surrendering one position is mandatory. The judgment, pronounced on , brings finality to the dealer’s attempt to retain the license while serving as Sarpanch.
