M DEVENDER Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR MEDAK DISTRICTAT SANGAREDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant -writ Petitioner, a fair price shop dealer, was charge sheeted by the Revenue Divisional Officer ? Respondent 3, vide proceedings dated 8.8.2005, alleging misuse of 250.86 quintals of rice supplied to him under food for work (FFW) scheme, besides, contravention of the conditions of authorization under the Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2001. Spot verification and inquiry was conducted which concluded in a final order dated 28.10.2005, canceling the authorization of the Appellant ? writ Petitioner. Order was appealed against but in vain, resultantly a revision ? petition, but again of no avail to the Appellant, consequently, invocation of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court, on the ground that 79.59 quintals of rice were stored by the Appellant in S.C. Community Hall which quantity was not verified by the inspecting staff. This ground, however, was neither raised by the Appellant in the explanation nor in appeal and not in the revision petition too. His explanation was that the estimated spoiled rice of 20.00 quintals apart from 96.76 quintals of rice is available in the fair price shop itself and thereby there is no variation in the stocks. In the aforesaid explanation, he has also stated to have issued 38.40 quintals of rice to one Ramesh Reddy and 112.87 quintals of rice to one Sanjeevareddy, both from the office of Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Kondapaka, and thereby the Appellant seeks to count 250.86 quintals of rice which was found short in the stock verification of his shop.

(2.) The initial order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, under which the authorization of the Appellant was cancelled, records that the Appellant made a statement before the Revenue Divisional Officer, acknowledging delivery of 20 quintals of FFW scheme rice to him which were spoiled by him without obtaining permission from the concerned authorities. There is no denying that he has issued 192.46 quintals of FFW scheme rice to the contractor without obtaining coupons and has admitted that the Mandal Revenue Officer had instructed him to issue FFW scheme rice only after obtaining the coupons and claims to be well acquainted with the system and the procedure that makes mandatory upon a fair price shop dealer to obtain the coupons before issuing rice under FFW scheme. In view of the said statement of the Appellant, the charge was found established and the Revenue Divisional Officer held that the Appellant has apparently misused the rice meant for daily labourers, who worked under FFW programme. The said conclusions were confirmed by the appellate authority/Collector (CS), Medak, vide his order dated 18.2.2006, and further confirmed by the District Collector, Medak, as revisional authority under order dated 28.11.2006. The Appellant thereafter moved the writ court questioning all the aforesaid orders.

(3.) In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the Appellant reiterated that 79.59 quintals of rice were available in the shop but the said quantity was not taken into consideration, whereas before the learned single Judge it was contended on his behalf that 79.59 quintals of rice was stored in S.C. community hall attached to Gram Panchayat and the inspecting staff did not take that stock into account. The claim so advanced was never raised by the Appellant at any earlier point of time, not in the affidavit too filed in support of the writ petition therefore the learned single Judge rejected the said contention. In this appeal the said contention is reiterated but we are not inclined to entertain a fresh plea which was not urged by the Appellant in his explanation, appeal or revision. Since it was raised for the first time before the writ Court, it did not merit consideration. However, the writ Court answered the said contention against the Appellant on merits and rightly so, because no Government Order is brought to our notice which would permit use of a community hall for storage purpose.