Back
2024 Supreme(Telangana) 297
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. SARATH, J.
Gulla Narsimhulu - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and five Others – Respondents
WRIT PETITION No.9937 OF 2015
Decided On : 04-07-2024
For the Petitioner: Sri Challa Srinivasa Reddy
For the Respondents: Learned Assistant Government Pleader, Sri M.Damodar Reddy, learned counsel.
IMPORTANT POINT
Ration cardholders cannot challenge the penalties imposed on Fair Price Shop Dealers, as their rights are limited to receiving entitled commodities.
Headnote:
Judicial Review - Fair Price Shop Dealer - A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 - The court upheld the authority's decision to impose a penalty rather than canceling the dealer's authorization, emphasizing the limited rights of ration cardholders.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the reinstatement of a Fair Price Shop Dealer after a penalty was imposed for stock irregularities, arguing that the dealer's authorization should have been canceled instead.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner lacked standing to challenge the penalty imposed on the dealer, as he had not filed a complaint and had alternative remedies available.
Issues: Whether the petitioner had the locus standi to challenge the penalty imposed on the Fair Price Shop Dealer and whether the authorities acted appropriately in their decision.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a ration cardholder does not have the right to dictate the punishment of a dealer or to seek cancellation of their license, as their rights are limited to receiving entitled commodities.
Result: The Writ Petition is dismissed as devoid of merits.
ORDER:
K. SARATH, J.
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and Sri M.Damodar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.6 and perused the entire material on record.
2. This writ petition is filed questioning the impugned proceedings dated 05.02.2015 issued by the respondent No.4 by taking lenient view and reinstated the respondent No.6 as Fair Price Shop Dealer of Shop No.29 of Mominapur Village, Maddur Village, Mahabubnagar District. The petitioner is a resident of Mominapur Village and is a Civil Supplies cardholder.
3. The contention of the petitioner is that basing on the complaint made by him, the Deputy Tahsildar, Enforcement submitted a report dated 09.08.2014 to the respondent No.2 stating that there are variations in the stocks and also they are not maintaining stocks register. Basing on the said report, the respondent No.2 issued show-cause notice to the respondent No.6 on 27.08.2014. After considering the explanation submitted by the respondent No.6, the respondent No.4 issued impugned proceedings imposing penalty of Rs.2,000/- and treating as first mistake, warned the respondent No.6 and also continued her authorization to distribute the commodities.
4. In the instant case, the petitioner is questioning the action of the respondent No.4 in reinstating the respondent No.6 as Fair Price Shop Dealer on the ground that the authorities ought to have cancelled the authorization of the respondent No.6, but a lenient view was taken by imposing penalty. The petitioner being a villager not given particulars of his card and he has not filed any complaint against the respondent No.6. In view of the same, he cannot seek imposition of particular punishment on the Fair Price Shop Dealer. The competent authority has to decide the punishment after conducting proper enquiry.
5. After considering the explanation submitted by the respondent No.6, the competent authority i.e., the respondent No.4 passed impugned orders imposing penalty of Rs.2,000/- and treating it as first mistake, warned the respondent No.6. The official respondents being competent authorities have to take appropriate action as per rules and the petitioner has no locus standi to question the punishment imposed against the Fair Price Shop dealers as he has not filed any complaint against the respondent No.6. If the petitioner being beneficiary of the Public Distribution System, he has to receive commodities and any irregularities arise in supply of commodities, he has right to complain before the appropriate authority, but he cannot question the orders passed by the appropriate authority on the ground that the respondents have not imposed particular punishment. Moreover, against the impugned orders, there is an appeal provision under A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008. The petitioner, without availing alternate remedy, has approached this Court.
6. In Durvin Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Un reported Judgment rendered by the Allahabad High Court in Writ C.No.14162 of 2021, the Allahabad High Court in similar issue held as follows:
26. In a prescient judgment which predates the Act of 2013, but remains relevant till date, this Court declined to permit a card-holder to choose a dealer or seek cancellation of his license. In the case of Ashfaq (supra), this Court crystallized the rights of a cardholder/complainant and held thus:
“A person, holding a ration card, is a consumer of the scheduled commodities under the Public Distribution Scheme. If he is not distributed the scheduled commodities according to his entitlement at a fair price, he may make a complaint to the food officer. The food officer is required to take an action on such complaint in accordance with the agreement with the authorized agent under clause 25 of the control order. The ration card holder is not an adversary or the controller of the scheme of distribution of scheduled commodities to the po
