BARATAM SRINIVASA RAO Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Writ Petition is filed to issue an order, direction or writ, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the order in Rc.No.603/2017 CS dtd. 14/5/2015 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam, the 4th respondent herein, cancelling the authorization of the petitioner for F.P. Shop No.44 of Jallapet village, Gara Mandal, Srikakulam District and the orders passed by the respondent Nos.3 and 2 in D.DIS.SR(A).No.20/2015/S2 dtd. 17/12/2015 and D.DIS.SR (R).No.01/2016/S2, dtd. 4/4/2017 respectively confirming the order of the 4th respondent as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and violative of principles of natural justice and also Articles 14, 19 (1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and set aside the same and consequently direct the 4th respondent to restore the authorization of the petition.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as permanent Fair Price Shop Dealer of F.P.Shop No.44 of Jallapeta in the year 2007. When he was distributing the essential commodities to the cardholders, a surprise inspection was conducted on the shop on16.3.2015 at 10.30 A.M by the Deputy Tahsildar (Civil Supplies) along with Enforcement Civil Supplies Revenue Inspector, Srikakulam. Based on the said inspection report, the 4th respondent issued a show cause notice dtd. 21/4/2015 to the petitioner calling for explanation within 7 days as to why Fair Price authorization should not be cancelled. The Tahsildar, Gara Mandal, Srikakulam submitted a report stating that on inspection it is found that 295 Kgs of sugar is less in the ground balance when compared to the key register and also it is found that Fair Price Shop Dealer is distributing 1 1/2 liters kerosene to the cardholders instead of 2 liters and that distribution details of the sugar was not shown in the key register and the petitioner is also opening the fair price shop only for two days in a week and distributing the essential commodities, which is in contravention of the guidelines. Hence, the Tahsildar requested to take action against the fair price shop dealer for contravention of the provisions of clause 17 (i) and 17 (a) and (c) of the Andhra Pradesh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 (in short "the Control Order, 2008) read with the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and in violation of the guidelines for fair price shop issued in G.O.Ms.No.4 Consumer Affairs, Food& Civil Supplies (CS.I) Department dtd. 19/2/2011. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 16/4/2015 denying the allegations made in the show cause notice stating that the allegations are only invented for the purpose of taking action against the petitioner at the instance of the political rivalries. The petitioner submitted his explanation stating that the sugar and rice was distributed at a time to the cardholders, but the he could not obtain signatures of the cardholders against the sugar column due to oversight, except one cardholder's signature namely Telugu Ramaraju S/o. Gurunadham, he could not obtain the signatures of other cardholders, which is not willful and wanton but due to inadvertence and oversight and though the above said facts were brought to the notice to the inspection staff, they did not take the same into consideration. The same has happened due to inadvertence and oversight. As per the notice given to the petitioner, the petitioner appeared before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam on 7/5/2015 at 11.00 AM for personal hearing. The petitioner has also got filed his written arguments through his Advocate Sri Ch. Satyanarayana. Further, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam considered the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice and evidence available on record holding that the petitioner has not produced any evidence in support of his contention to prove his innocence and the petitioner has not produced any evidence in support of his explanation. Hence, the explanation is not convincing and proved that the Fair Price Shop dealer has contravened the provisions of Clause 8 and 17 of the Control Order, 2008. Accordingly, exercising his power under clause 5 (5) of Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 the petitioner's authorization was cancelled. Against which, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 3rd respondent Joint Collector stating that the Revenue Divisional Officer has not considered the explanation with regard to shortage of sugar and also with regard other allegations. The Joint Collector dismissed the appeal by proceedings on 17/12/2015 stating that the petitioner's explanation that due to oversight, he could not obtain the signatures of the cardholders in the key register is not acceptable. The petitioner filed Revision before the District Collector against the order passed by the Joint Collector. The District Collector called for records and dismissed the revision, by order dtd. 4/4/2017 and confirmed the order of the Joint Collector dtd. 17/12/2015, without adverting to the grounds of revision and the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's authorization was cancelled without conducting any enquiry by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the District Collector in Revision Petition dtd. 4/4/2017 confirming the order of the Joint Collector dtd. 17/12/2015, which was passed confirming that order of cancellation passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer on 14/5/2015, this present writ petitioner is filed.

(3.) The 4th respondent Revenue Divisional Officer filed counter stating that the Tahilsdar, Gara Mandal, Srikakulam District has submitted a report stating that the Deputy Tahsidlar (CS) and Enforcement Civil Supplies Revenue Inspector, Srikakakulam inspected the Fair Price Shop No.44 of Jallapet on 16/3/2015 at 10.30 AM and found shortage of sugar by 295 kgs in the ground balance compared to the key register and also as per the mediatornama, fair price shop dealer is distributing 1 1/2 kerosene to the cardholders instead of 2 liters and details of the sugar are not shown in the key register and also the petitioner is opening the fair price shop only for two days in a week and distributing the essential commodities to the cardholders, which is against the guidelines issued by the Government and violative of the provisions of clause 17 (i) and clause 17 (a) and (c) of the Control Order, 2008 and take action against the fair price shop dealer. A notice was issued to the petitioner to appear before the Revenue Divisional Officer on 7/5/2015 at 11.00 AM and he engaged an advocate and submitted written arguments denying the allegations. The petitioner accepted variations in his explanation and contended that due to oversight the signatures of the cardholders could not be taken against the sugar column but signatures are taken against the rice column. But, he failed to produce any evidence in support of his explanation and not satisfied with the explanation of the petitioner, passed the cancellation order dtd. 14/5/2015. There is no illegality or irregularity in passing the cancellation order and petitioner's appeal was also dismissed on the ground that the petitioner failed to submit evidence before the appellate authority and also revision petition by the revisional authority.