POKURI CHINA CEHNNAMMA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the cancellation of authorization in her favour as a fair price shop dealer by the proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer, dated 17.06.2008, confirmed in appeal by the Revenue Divisional Officer by an order, dated 23.12.2008, and further confirmed by the Collector, Civil Supplies, in revision by an order, dated 10.12.2010. The petitioner was selected on application in pursuance of a notification and on oral interview and on verification of all the necessary documents and physical verification. An appointment by proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 10.10.2005, was cancelled allegedly treating her as a member of the family of her mother-in-law, who was elected as a Sarpanch of the Village in the direct elections on 02.08.2006. The petitioner and her husband were living separately since 15 years and the Mandal Revenue Officer neither gave notice nor an opportunity to the petitioner to place the facts before cancellation of the authorization without assigning any reasons. The directions of the High Court in W.P. No. 10148 of 2007 were before the orders of the Collector in revision and, hence, the petitioner stated that G.O. Ms. No. 45, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies, (CS-I) Department, dated 19.07.2004, is inapplicable to her and she narrated in detail the sequence of various events that occurred in the quasi-judicial and judicial proceedings relating to cancellation of her authorization. Her attempt to continue to act as the fair price shop dealer is sought to be resisted by the respondents on the grounds mentioned in the counter affidavit of the District Collector, who admitted the petitioner being the fair price shop dealer and the first respondent gave the details of the various cases relating to the dealership of the petitioner ultimately culminating in the cancellation of her authorization, which was confirmed in appeal and revision by the authorities. The first respondent basically relied on G.O. Ms. No. 53, dated 06.10.2003, para 12 of the annexure of which, made all individuals holding public offices ineligible for appointment as fair price shop dealer. The subsequent amendment of the said paragraph by G.O. Ms. No. 45, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies, (CS-I) Department, dated 19.07.2004, extending the ineligibility to the family members of such persons was further relied on and, hence, it is contended that the election of the mother-in-law as the Gram Sarpanch after G.O. Ms. No. 45, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies, (CS-I)- Department, dated 19.07.2004, disentitled the petitioner from continuing as a fair price shop dealer.

(2.) Heard Sri J.U.M.V. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.C. Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.

(3.) The existence of G.O. Ms. No. 45, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies, (CS-I) Department, with effect from 19.07.2004 extending the ineligibility from acting as a fair price shop dealer to members of the families of persons holding public offices is not in dispute, but the question raised is whether a separated daughter-in-law can be treated as a member of the family of the mother-in-law, who was elected as a Sarpanch, which factor is claimed to be disqualifying the petitioner from continuing as a fair price shop dealer. It is significant that even the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 17.06.2008, rejected the contention of the petitioner about living separately due to some discrepancy in the Door Number of the house notwithstanding the admitted issuance of a separate ration card for her on the ground that the petitioner took advantage of her position as a fair price shop dealer in respect of the ration card. It is preposterous to suggest that the competent authorities of the Revenue Department would have issued a false or bogus ration card in favour of the petitioner merely because she was a fair price shop dealer. The order of the Joint Collector in appeal straight away held the petitioner to be related to the family members of the Panchayat Sarpanch and consequently, the cancellation of her authorization was considered to have been duly made. The Appellate order never considered the contentions of the petitioner in this regard about separation of the family and separate living of the mother-in-law and daughter-in-law. When it came to the order of the Collector, dated 10.02.2010, also, the order in revision straight away presumed the mother-in-law to be the family member of the petitioner with reference to G.O. Ms. No. 45, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies, (CS-I) Department, dated 19.07.2004, and gave no reasons to not accept the contentions of the petitioner. During the course of hearing of the writ petition, Sri J.U.M.V. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner also produced, for the perusal of the Court, a copy of the Ration Card, dated 14.12.2006, of the petitioner and a copy of the Ration Card, dated 18.06.2007, of the mother-in-law. He also furnished a copy of the Voters' List-2010 showing the entry at Serial No. 380 relating to the mother-in-law and the entry at Serial No. 298 relating to the petitioner indicating their separate residence in separate houses. Such public documents cannot be discredited by the official respondents without any basis and, hence, application of G.O. Ms. No. 45, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies, (CS-I) Department, dated 19.07.2004, to the petitioner is but unjust and illegal.