RAMABAI AMBEDKAR Vs. COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF FOOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, petitioner is aggrieved by order passed by the first respondent ­ Commissioner and Director of Food and Civil Supplies, Bangalore, partly allowing the appeal filed by the petitioner and remanding the matter back to the Deputy Commissioner to conduct a detailed enquiry into the allegations made against the petitioner in the matter of distribution of essential commodities and pass appropriate orders within sixty days.

(2.) PETITIONER obtained authorization to run the fair price shop at Kanabur village during 1994. On 23.01.1996 the first respondent directed the Deputy Commissioner to hold an enquiry into the irregularities alleged with regard to the distribution of food grains and kerosene in the fair price shop run by the petitioner. An order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 27.08.2007 permitting the petitioner to distribute food grains and kerosene to the cardholders recording a finding that there was no evidence that the petitioner had committed irregularities and illegality in the matter of distribution of food grains and kerosene. However, the villagers challenged the said order by filing a revision petition before the State Government. The revision petition was dismissed on 14.10.2011. Thereafter, as alleged by the petitioner, because of the influence of the local M.L.A., the Deputy Commissioner issued the Show Cause Notice dated 24.10.2011, calling upon the petitioner to explain why the authorization granted to him shall not be cancelled because of the allegedly illegality committed by him. Even before the Deputy Commissioner could pass any order, the third respondent- Tahasildar passed an order on 17.11.2011 vide Annexure-G, transferring the card holders attached to the fair price shop of the petitioner to some other fair price shop.

(3.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that it was not necessary for the respondent to remand the matter for fresh consideration, at any rate, while remanding the matter the first respondent ought to have stayed the order passed by the Tahasildar transferring the cardholders to another fair price shop.