VENKANNA Vs. JOINT COLLECTOR, WARANGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by a fair price shop dealer of Shop No. 40, Peddanagaram Village, Narsimhulupeta Mandal, Warangal District, challenging the validity of the orders passed on 31st December, 2011 by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubabad suspending with immediate effect the authorization issued in favour of the writ petitioner for running and maintaining a fair price shop as he was involved in a criminal case, pursuant to which he was suspended and remanded to judicial custody for 18 days. The case of the petitioner is that he was a regular fair price shop dealer of Shop No. 40, Peddanagaram Village, Narsimhulupeta Mandal, Warangal District, and he was unnecessarily involved in Cr. No. 94 of 2011 by the rival group in the village and on the pretext that he was remanded to judicial custody for a spell of 18 days, the Revenue Divisional Officer has passed the impugned order suspending the authorization issued earlier in favour of the petitioner.

(2.) Heard Sri A. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.

(3.) Learned counsel for the writ petitioner would submit that the petitioner has not contravened any of the conditions contained in the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 (for short "PDS Control Order") nor was any case booked against him for violation of the provisions contained under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and hence, the authorization issued in favour of the petitioner could not have been suspended at all by the Revenue Divisional Officer. It is further contended that as per Clause 5 (7) of the afore mentioned order, the authorization of a fair price shop dealer is liable to be cancelled if he has been convicted by a Court of law in respect of contravention of any order made under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 relating to any of the conditions mentioned in the Schedule to the PDS Control Order. However, if such conviction is set aside in appeal or revision, the appointing authority is required to issue re-authorization to such a person and it is therefore contended by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the petitioner's involvement in some other offence could not have provided a reasonable basis for action to be taken against the petitioner resulting in suspension of his authorization. It is contended that Cr. No. 94 of 2011 was booked for the offences said to have been committed under Sections 418, 420, 406, 409, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC and they have nothing to do with any of the scheduled commodities or any of the orders made in pursuance of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act and hence his authorization could not have been suspended.