KUNDURTHI VENKAT RAO Vs. NALLAMOTHU VENKATESWARLU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal was preferred against an interlocutory order passed by a learned single Judge in W.P.M.P. No. 3761/ 91 in W.P. 3058/91, suspending the order passed by the District Collector, Guntur in R.P. Case No. 112/90-S11 dated 22-1-1991," dismissing the Revision petition preferred by Nallamothu Venkateswarlu, a Fair Price Shop Dealer of Nadendta village in Guntur District. On the previous occasion when the Writ Appeal came up for admission we directed that the writ petition along with the writ appeal be listed for disposal and accordingly both came up for hearing today.

(2.) The petitioner in the writ petition is an authorised Fair Price Shop Dealer of Nadendla Village, Guntur District. Certain complaints were received against him alleging that he was not distributing the essential commodities to the card-holders properly. Based on the complaints, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet, the competent authority, passed an interim order on 10-1-1990 temporarily cancelling the authorisation of the petitioner and making alternative arrangements for distribution of the essential commodities to the card-holders. On the same date, a show-cause notice was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer to the petitioner alleging that he lifted the stock of rice for the month of November but did not distribute the same to the card-holders and thereby caused great inconvenience by selling rice in black market. 26 card numbers are specifically mentioned in the charge No. 1 which also recites -

(3.) The Mandal Revenue Officer who conducted the enquiry, in his report dt. 4-4-90 submitted to the Revenue Divisional Officer, stated that the explanation of the petitioner was not correct. His enquiries revealed that some of the card-holders did not receive essential commodities during the month of November, 1989. They told him that whenever they went to the fair price shop of the petitioner he did not respond in proper manner. The Mandal Revenue Officer concluded that the petitioner was indulging in malpractices and violated the conditions of the authorisation. The Revenue Divisional Officer, after considering the report of the M.R.O., came to the conclusion that both the allegations were proved and that the petitioner caused great inconvenience to the cardholders. He, therefore, cancelled the authorisation of the petitioner. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal to the Joint Collector who by his order dated 2-11-1990 dismissed the appeal. In revision, the District Collector after hearing the arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioner held by his order dated 22-1-1991 that the petitioner had contravened condition No. 8 of the authorisation issued under the A.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by-Card System) Order, 1973 and, therefore, there was no necessity to enquire any card-holders. On that view, he declined to interfere with the order passed by the appellate authority. Challenging the same, W.P. No. 3058/91 was filed.