BOYA AYYANNA Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL SUPPLIES KURNOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner was appointed as a fair price shop dealer for S. Lingamdinne Village, Gonegandla Mandal, Kurnool District, after due selection.

(2.) His authorization was renewed from time to time. It is stated that he has been distributing the essential commodities, strictly in accordance with the provisions subject to which the authorization was accorded to him. It is averred that when lands belonging to the local temple are sought to be utilized for construction of a water tank, in spite of availability of other alternative lands, he opposed the said move, which, in turn, brought forth criminal cases booked against him, at the instance of the local Sarpanch. The authorization of the writ petitioner has been suspended initially by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoni on 12.12.2006. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer on 19.03.2008, for which he has filed his reply on 04.04.2008 pleading that he was falsely implicated in the criminal cases and that one case has already ended in his acquittal and the second case is still pending and therefore, his authorization may not be cancelled. However, the Revenue Divisional Officer has passed orders on 29.09.2009 cancelling the authorization of the fair price shop managed by the writ petitioner. He preferred an appeal on 07.12.2009 to the Joint Collector. On 09.07.2010, the matter was heard by the Joint Collector and in spite of the counsel for the writ petitioner bringing to his notice the fact that the second case was also ended in acquittal and that the petitioner has already submitted an application for renewing his authorization, the appeal was dismissed. Against the said orders, a revision was preferred on 21.07.2010 to the Collector and District Magistrate, Kurnool. Ultimately, the said revision was dismissed by the order passed on 12.10.2010 by the District Collector. Challenging the validity of these orders, the present Writ Petition is instituted.

(3.) It will be appropriate to notice that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoni, through his order dated 29.09.2009, while cancelling the authorization of the writ petitioner, has rested his conclusion on the ground that the cases that are booked against the writ petitioner before the competent criminal Courts are grave in nature and that the authorization granted in favour of the writ petitioner was valid only up to 31.03.2008 and he has not applied for subsequent renewal. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that challans were paid seeking extension/renewal of his authorization, but without any regard therefor, the Revenue Divisional Officer has concluded as if the writ petitioner has not sought for any renewal. It will also be appropriate to notice that the authorization of the writ petitioner has been initially suspended by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoni on 12.12.2006 and in his final order dated 29.09.2009, he has noticed that the authorization has been renewed up to 31.03.2008.