IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD
A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J.
C. Durga Srinivas Rao & Others – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary & Others – Respondent
Writ Petition Nos. 30126 & 30128 of 2014, 2388, 2094 & 4204 of 2015
Decided on : 07-08-2015
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Revenue Divisional Officer – Writ Petitions are being disposed of by this common order in view of the common point of law involved in all these Writ Petitions. Learned counsel petitioners as well as the learned Government Pleader were heard filed challenging the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer Guntur cancelling the authorization of the petitioners as fair price shop dealers filed by another fair price shop dealer challenging the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, cancelling his authorization. Thus common issue that fell for consideration in all these cases is with regard to the procedure followed by the Revenue Divisional Officers while cancelling the authorizations of the petitioners are not challenging the jurisdiction of the Revenue Divisional Officers in all these cases. But, learned counsel for the petitioners concentrated the manner in which the cases were dealt with by the concerned officers issue with regard to the procedure did not arise for the first time in these cases, but was already decided in a number of decisions concerned Revenue Divisional Officers are passing the orders oblivious of the binding decisions of this Court. Since this Court is regularly flooded with orders passed by such officers in a casual manner, this court thought it fit to reconsider the issue for proper guidance of the authorities in order to minimize future litigation –Held, Charge No.6: FP Shop dealer has not exhibited the Stock Cum Price List Board in the premises of FP Shop. Thereby the FP Shop dealer has violated clause 22 (V) of APSPDS After extracting the explanation of the petitioner, the report of was considered and a finding was recorded by holding as follows explanation filed by the FP Shop dealer through his Advocate is not convinced and far away from truth court felt that deterrent punishment is necessary to keep away the FP shop dealer from the public distribution system to safeguard the interest of the poor cardholders and also for smooth functioning of Public Distribution System. Hence, F.P. Shop dealership hereby cancelled above cases indicate that due procedure was not followed by the officers while cancelling the authorisation for the alleged violations/irregularities committed by the petitioners violation of the procedure by the concerned Revenue Divisional Officers, the orders passed in the above Writ Petitions are to be set aside and are accordingly set aside Writ Petitions are allowed and remanded to the appointing authority for not following the principles of natural justice while conducting the enquiry and passing orders of cancellation of authorisation – Writ Petitions are allowed
“Excellence is a continuous process and not an accident”
- A.P.J. Abdul Kalam.
2. These Writ Petitions are being disposed of by this common order in view of the common point of law involved in all these Writ Petitions. The learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Pleader were heard.
3. W.P.Nos.30126 and 30128 of 2014, 2094 of 2015 and 2388 of 2015 were filed challenging the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur dated 30.09.2014 cancelling the authorization of the petitioners as fair price shop dealers. W.P.No.4204 of 2015 was filed by another fair price shop dealer challenging the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur cancelling his authorization on 24.01.2015. Thus, the common issue that fell for consideration in all these cases is with regard to the procedure followed by the Revenue Divisional Officers while cancelling the authorizations of the petitioners.
4. The petitioners are not challenging the jurisdiction of the Revenue Divisional Officers in all these cases. But, the learned counsel for the petitioners concentrated the manner in which the cases were dealt with by the concerned officers. The issue with regard to the procedure did not arise for the first time in these cases, but was already decided in a number of decisions. Inspite of the same, the concerned Revenue Divisional Officers are passing the orders oblivious of the binding decisions of this Court. Since this Court is regularly flooded with orders passed by such officers in a casual manner, this court thought it fit to reconsider the issue for proper guidance of the authorities in order to minimize future litigation.
5. These cases arise out of the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, the Act) and the Control Orders issued thereunder. Section 2-A of the Act states that for the purposes of the said Act “essential commodity” means a commodity specified in the Schedule. The control, production, supply, distribution etc. of essential commodities is provided in Section 3 thereof. The said Section empowers the Central Government to regulate such activity by an Order. With regard to licenses, permits or otherwise the production or manufacture of any essential commodity, controlling the price thereof, storage, transport, distribution, distribution, disposal, acquisition, use or consumption of any essential commodity, prohibiting the sale, holding in stock, selling of essential commodity by the Central or a State Government, it was stated that a provision can be made in the Order to the Central Government or a State Government or to an officer or agent of such Government or to a Corporation owned or controlled by such Government or to such other person or class of persons and the circumstances also can be specified in the Order. In the said section, there are other provisions also and we are not concerned with the same for the time being for the purpose of these cases.
6. The State Government passed an Order called the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 (for short, Control Order), published in G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 19.05.2008, enabling the appointing authorities to issue authorizations to fair price shop dealers owned by the State Government or any State Government undertaking or any public institution or persons including women or Development of Women and Children in Rural Areas Group (DWCRA) or registered women Volontary Consumer Organizations or thrift groups like Podupu Lakshmi or Co-operative societies which are run exclusively by women either wholly or partly, subject to such preferences and reservations as may be prescribed by Government from time to time. The said Order provides for supply of scheduled commodities by an authorized fair price shop/nominated retailer/authorized establishments, supply of cards and powers to make regu
Ambati Srinivasulu v. District Collector
Aligarh Muslim University v. Mansoor Ali Khan(AIR 2000 SC 2783)
Indru Ramchand Bharvani v. Union of India (1988) 4 SCC 1
Katamreddi Vasundhara v. Joint Collector, Ananthapur
K.Santha Kumar v. Revenue Divisional Officer
M.Saritha v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (2012 (4) ALT 478)
M.Sadasiva Sekhar v. District Collector
M.P. Industries Ltd. v. Union of India (AIR 1966 SC 671)
M/s. Sukhwinder Pal Bipan Kumar v. State of Punjab (AIR 1982 SC 65)
Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India (AIR 1966 SC 671).
M.C.Mehta v. Union of India (AIR 1999 SC 2583)
P.Nagaraju v. RDO, Dharmavaram
P.Nageswara Rao v. District Collector
Radha Krishna Naidu v. Director of Civil Supplies
S.N.Mukherjee v. Union of India (AIR 1990 SC 1984)
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.