BHARATHAMMA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the Advocates for both the parties so also the Government Pleader.

(2.) AN authorisation to run a fair price depot was granted by the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya on 27-7-1995 in favour of the petitioner in W. P. No. 12408 of 2001. Authorisation granted in favour of the petitioner in W. P. No. 12408 of 2001 Smt. Bharathamma, was withdrawn by the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya on 23-11-1995 as per Annexure-G on the ground that petitioner was an employee of BPL and that she obtained authorisation without disclosing the same to the authorities. On 5-12-1995 as per Annexure-H Deputy Commissioner, Mandya granted authorisation to run the fair price depot in favour of the petitioner in w. P. No. 3932 of 2001 Smt. K, Manjula. Cancellation of the order of authorisation was challenged by the petitioner in W. P. No. 12408 of 2001 before the Commissioner of Director of Food and Civil Supplies who rejected the appeal on 7-2-1997 as per Annexure-J. Thereafter, a revision petition was filed before the Government. Government, by its order dated 23-11-2000 set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner, mandya granting authorisation in favour of Smt. K. Manjula who is writ petitioner in W. P. No. 3932 of 2001 and directed the Deputy Commissioner to call for the applications and grant authorisation in accordance with law by setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Food and Civil Supplies dated 7-2-1997. Being aggrieved by the order of the government as per Annexure-K, dated 23-11-2000 these two writ petitions are filed.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner in W. P. No. 12408 of 2001 contends that Deputy Commissioner was not right in granting the authorisation in favour of Smt. K. Manjula when her application as per annexure-A was rejected on the ground that Smt. Manjula did not produce the documents to show that she is having required funds and she is having accommodation to run the fair price depot. According to him, there was no need or necessity for the Deputy Commissioner to consider the case of Smt. Manjula alone without considering the applications of others. In other words, even though the authorisation granted in favour of Smt. Bharathamma has been cancelled, Deputy Commissioner should have called for fresh applications from the eligible candidates and should have considered all the applications. Therefore, he contends that the authorisation granted in favour of Smt. Manjula is bad in law and the same is require to be set aside.