M REVATHI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CHITTOOR DISTRICT AT CHITTOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition preferred by a fair price shop dealer challenges the validity of an order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati, on 20.12.2011 suspending the authorization issued in favour of the writ petitioner to run and manage the fair price shop No.4 of Chiguruwada village, Tirupati Rural Mandal, pending enquiry and also directing the Tahsildar, Tirupati Rural to make alternative arrangements by attaching the ration cards to the adjacent fair price shop to avoid inconvenience to the card holders of fair price shop No.4 of Chiguruwada village, Tirupati Rural Mandal.

(2.) The writ petitioner was appointed as a fair price shop dealer for Shop No.4, Chiguruwada village of Tirupati Rural in the year 2006. Though it is asserted by the writ petitioner that she has been distributing the essential commodities strictly in accordance with The Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 2001, but nonetheless, the Deputy Tahsildar, Civil Supplies, filed a report on 14.2.2011 before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati, alleging that when he has visited Chiguruwada village for inspection of the fair price shop at 10 AM, the shop was not opened and he has also noticed subsequently that the details of the stock available and the prices of the commodities has not been exhibited and that instead of the writ petitioner managing and running the fair price shop, some other individual by name Sri M.Venkata Muni was found running the shop and it was further noticed that the writ petitioner was not residing in the village at all. Based upon this adverse report of the Deputy Tahsildar, Civil Supplies, the impugned order came to be passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati on 20.12.2011 suspending the authorization of the writ petitioner for running and managing the fair price shop pending enquiry.

(3.) Learned counsel for the writ petitioner would strenuously contend that the allegations contained in the adverse report submitted by the Deputy Tahsildar, Civil Supplies, are the result of his imagination rather than being true. The case of the writ petitioner is that by 14.12.2011, all the essential commodities have been distributed to the card holders and hence there are no essential commodities available in the shop for the writ petitioner to keep the shop open. Further, on the notice board regularly the stock details and the price list is exhibited. But, however, half of the details got washed away because of the rain and that was mistaken as if stock particulars and price list is not exhibited by the Deputy Tahsildar and further that Sri M.Venkata Muni is a member of the petitioner's family being none other than the husband of the younger sister and since the petitioner is not maintaining good health on that particular day, to enable the inspection to go on, Sri Venkata Muni opened the shop. Therefore, it is not a case where someone else has been running the fair price shop in place of the writ petitioner. Apart from the above factual contest, it is contended by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the Revenue Divisional Officer has passed the impugned order without any regard to the principles of natural justice and the requirements of law inasmuch as the writ petitioner has not been afforded any opportunity of hearing prior to the impugned order is passed.