( 1 ) THE petitioner assails the orders dated 9-12-2004 passed by first respondent herein whereby and whereunder orders passed by second respondent were stayed pending consideration of revision petition filed under clause 21 of A. P. State Public Distribution system Control Order 2001 (2001 Control order) against orders of second respondent. The order is assailed mainly on the ground that fourth respondent, who is a temporary fair price shop dealer of U. Bollavaram Village has no locus standi to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of first respondent. Strong reliance is placed on a decision in Alapati Soma sekhar v. Collector, Krishna District.

( 2 ) THE facts of the matter, in brief, may be noticed. The petitioner was appointed as fair price shop dealer of U. Bollavaram Village some time prior to 1975. Third respondent herein suspended the authorization on 10-8-2001 on the allegations that he was absent on 1-8-2001 at the time of inspection, that he diverted thirty quintals of rice to black market, that he contravened the conditions of authorization and that he has not taken release order for essential commodities. After suspending petitioner, fourth respondent was appointed as temporary fair price shop dealer by proceedings dt. 7-2-2002 passed by third respondent. The petitioner preferred appeal before second respondent, who by order dt. 9-12-2004 took a lenient view, imposed fine of Rs. 800/- and forfeited security deposit and restored authorization of the petitioner. The petitioner has been reinstated by third respondent by order dt. 7-1-2005. Aggrieved by this, fourth respondent preferred revision under Clause 21 of the 2001 Control Order who stayed the proceedings of second respondent by the impugned order.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner placed strong reliance on the decision in alapati Soma Sekhar v. Collector, Krishna districf in support of the contention that there is no jurisdiction to first respondent to entertain revision on behalf of temporary fair price shop dealer. Per contra, learned counsel for fourth respondent Sri E. Ayyapu Reddy submits that after coming into force of 2001 control Order with effect from 6-4-2002 fourth respondent, who was appointed as temporary fair price shop dealer, shall be deemed to be permanent dealer and therefore her appointment cannot be treated as temporary dealership.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel, however, does not dispute the legal position that Clause 21 of the 2001 Control Order does not give any remedy of revision to temporary fair price shop dealer and that such remedy is available only to a person who is aggrieved by the order of the Joint Collector passed under clause 20 in appeal.

( 5 ) THE only pointthatfalls for consideration in the background of facts and in the light of the submissions made across the Bar, is whether temporary fair price shop dealer appointed under A. P Scheduled Commodities (Regulation and Distribution by Card System) order, 1973 (1973 Control Order) shall be deemed to be a permanent fair price shop dealer within the meaning of 2001 Control order.

( 6 ) AUTHORIZED fair price shop is defined in clause 2 (6) as under. 2 (6 ). "authorised Fair Price Shop" means a retail dealer appointed or authorized or approved by or on behalf of the State Government and includes a shop set up by the State Government or a State Government Undertaking or a corporation wholly owned by the State government or a Co-operative Society for the benefit of Scheduled Castes or scheduled Tribes under a Government scheme under Clause (5) for sale of all or any of the Scheduled Commodities. Explanation: On the commencement of this order in any area every dealer who was appointed, authorized or approved by or on behalf of the State government (as approved retailer or by any other designation) and whose appointment, authorization or approval was in force in respect of any of the scheduled Commodities immediately before such commencement, shall be deemed to be an authorized fair

Click Here to Read the rest of this document