SHAIK RAMU Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER NARSIPATNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was appointed as a Fair Price Shop (FPS) Dealer. The competent authority, namely, the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) initiated action under Clause 5(1) of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control), Order 2001 (hereafter called the Control Order, 2001). A show-cause notice dated 1.7.2002 was issued alleging the following contraventions. Charge No.1: Sri Shaik Ramu fair price shop dealer received 3454.00 qunts. of rice towards food for work and out of the said stock 2505.07 kts. was distributed and at that time of inspection there is only stock of 674.75 kgs. out of rice and there is shortgage of 275.74 kgs. rice.

(2.) Simultaneously, the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereafter called the E.C. Act) were initiated by the Joint Collector. The main allegation against the appellant was that he was found indulging in black marketing of large quantity of rice meant for Food for Work (FFW) Programme and that he was maintaining three godowns unauthorisedly. The appellant submitted his explanation on 18.7.2002. Considering the same, by order dated 20.7.2002, the RDO cancelled the authorization for contravention of the Control Order, 2001. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal under Clause 20 of the Control Order, 2001 unsuccessfully. The appeal was dismissed on 5.10.2002. The appellant then preferred a revision to the District Collector, which was also dismissed on 29.3.2003. The writ petition is filed thereafter assailing the order of the RDO dated 20.7.2002 cancelling the authorization. Though specifically the orders of the District Collector were not challenged, as the original order as well as the appellate order merged in the revisional order, the writ petition is one, which is against the revisional order.

(3.) Learned Single Judge by impugned judgment dismissed the writ petition. It was contended before the learned Single Judge that any alleged contravention in dealing with FFW Programme rice is not governed by either the provisions of the E.C. Act or the Control Order, 2001 and, therefore, Clause 5(1) of the Control Order, 2001 is not attracted and the impugned order of the RDO as confirmed by the appellate authority and revisional authority suffers from error in exercise of the jurisdiction. Making a reference to the provisions in the E.C. Act and the Control Order, 2001, the learned Single Judge concluded as follows: