ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“...to issue a writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the 2^nd respondent in allowing the appeal filed by the 5^th respondent in Rc.CS.2/390/2015, dated 27.07.2016 is illegal, arbitrary and violation of the principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same....”

2. The case of the petitioner briefly as follows:

a. The petitioner is ration cardholder of Ommevaram Village, Naguluppalapadu Mandal of Praksham District. The 5^th respondent was appointed as a dealer of the fair price shop No.42 of the same village by the 3^rd respondent. Basing on the report dated 05.05.2015 of the 4^th respondent, the 3^rd respondent issued a show-cause notice to the 5^th respondent framing three charges out of which the 1^st charge is that the relatives of the 5^th respondent are government/public sector employees i.e., the wife of the 5^th respondent is working as Manager in SBI, Mothada of Guntur District in contravention of Clause 12(iii) of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 (in short „the Control Order, 2008‟) and the 2^nd charge is that the 5^th respondent has run the shop through binami and contravened the Clause 6(iii) of the Control Order, 2008 and the 3^rd charge is that the 5^th respondent caused much inconvenience to the cardholders and violated the conditions of the Control Order, 2008.

b. After examining the explanation of the 5^th respondent, the 3^rd respondent cancelled the dealership of the 5^th respondent vide proceedings in Rc.No.1/837/2015, dated 12.12.2015 holding the 1^st and the 2^nd charges as proved and directed the 4^th respondent to make alternative arrangements for distribution of the essential commodities.

c. Aggrieved by the same, 5^th respondent filed the appeal before the 2^nd respondent who passed an order dated 27.07.2016 in Rc.No.CS/2/390/2015 setting aside the orders of the 4^th respondent. By placing reliance on the decision of this Court in W.P.No.2411 of 2012, dated 10.06.2012, with regard to the 1^st charge, it was observed that the department of bank is not covered by G.O.Ms.No.12, dated 06.03.2012 by which Clause 12(iii) was amended and that bank employee is not in a position to influence the public distribution system. And with regard to the 2^nd charge, it was observed that at the time of the inspection, the appellant/dealer was available and confessed that he was coming from Guntur and distributing the commodities and he has ration card and voter ID in the same village, but the inspecting Officer had not produced sufficient documentary evidence that the fair price shop is being run by binami. This writ petition is filed challenging the same, only on the 1^st charge.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the same contention.

4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader contended that the said guideline does not cover the employment of the wife of the 5^th respondent so as to disentitle him to be appointed as dealer of fair price shop.

5. For the purpose of clarity, Clause 12(iii) of the Control Order, 2008 is extracted:

“(iii) Close relatives of the employees of the Implementing/Enforcing Departments of Public Distribution System such as Civil Supplies, Revenue, Vigilance & Enforcement, Police, Legal Metrology, Judiciary Departments, Quality Control Cell of GOI etc.; User Departments such as School Education (Primary), Social Welfare, Backward Classes Welfare, Tribal Welfare, Minorities Welfare, Women Development & Child Welfare Departments, Residential Schools, Govt. ITIS, Military, NCC etc., Civil Supplies Corporation shall not be appointed as Fair Price shop Dealers; there shall, however, be no objection to appoint family members or relatives of employees working on contractual basis on consolidated pay like Anganwadi teachers, ANMS, Asha Workers, Vidya Volunteers, outsourcing employees etc.”

A reading of the above provision, makes it cle