Point of Law: exercise of the power by the 2nd respondent in cancelling the authorizations of the petitioners by setting aside the order passed by the RDO restoring the authorizations is found to be justified.

ORDER :

These two writ petitions are filed assailing the proceedings dated 13.06.2019 of the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 [for short, ‘Control Order’]. By the said proceedings, the 2nd respondent, in exercise of suo motu powers conferred under Clause 5(15) of the Control Order had cancelled the authorizations issued in favour of Smt A. Prema Kumari dealer of F.P.Shop No.1382077, and The Mahila Co-operative Super Bazar, dealer of F.P.Shop No.46, Kurnool Town – petitioners herein and imposed a penalty of three times the difference between the market rate and public distribution system rate of the commodity diverted.

2. The facts and the issues raised in both the writ petitions are one and the same. Hence, these two writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

3. The facts that lead to the filing of these two writ petitions, in brief, are that the 6th respondent submitted a report to the 4th respondent stating that as per the directions the 3rd respondent had conducted inspection of fair price shop Nos.1382046, 1382058 and 1382077 on 14.02.2018 and found that the fair price shop No.46 is not being run in the premises mentioned in the authorization and when contacted with the person A. Tarun Babu, who is lifting stocks on behalf of the dealer, he took them to the premises at door No.39-240, Vaddegeri, Kurnool. In the said premises there was a small board painted in the back side of the staircase mentioning as FP shop No.1382077. As they entered in the FP shop they noticed three E POS devices. On enquiry, the said person revealed that he is nominee of FP Shop Nos.1382046, 1382058 & 1382077 and shown the E POS machines pertained to those three FP shops. On verification of the stock in respect of the above three FP shops, the following variations were found :

(-denotes shortage, + excess stock)

4. Based on the report of the inspecting team, the 4th respondent - Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool, initially suspended the authorization of all the above three FP shops by proceedings dated 19.02.2018. Aggrieved by the said suspension orders, the fair price shop dealers preferred appeal before the 3rd respondent for restoration of their authorizations. The 3rd respondent remanded the case back to the 4th respondent - Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool, for finalization of the case. The Revenue Divisional Officer framed six charges against the fair price shop dealers. After conducting enquiry, the Revenue Divisional Officer, having concluded that no complaint is received from the card holders against the dealer and as such there is no positive evidence available against the fair price shop dealer to take necessary action, restored the fair price shop authorization to the dealer imposing a penalty of Rs.5,000/- each with a warning to run the fair price shops in the authorized premises and distribute the essential commodities to the card holders as per Rules vide proceedings of the 4th respondent dated 05.12.2018. In pursuance of the same, the 6th respondent vide proceedings dated 21.01.2019 informed the 5th respondent that the dealers had remitted the fine amount and requested to enter the name of Smt A. Prema Kumari in E POS device for shop No.1382077, and the same dealer may be kept as incharge for FP shop No.1382058 and as nominee her son’s name A Tarun Babu may also be entered in the E POS device and Name of Sri A. Ramesh Babu for sho