KARNATI NAGESWARA RAO Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR GUNTUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is instituted by a fair price shop dealer of Yarrabalem village, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District challenging the correctness of the orders passed by the 3rd respondent - Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur on 10.12.2009 cancelling the authorization of the writ petitioner for the alleged irregularities committed by him. In terms of clause 20(1) of the Public Distribution System Control Order, 2008, the writ petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the Joint Collector who by his order dated 3.3.2010 dismissed the appeal. The writ petitioner thereafter availed the remedy of revision available to him under Clause 21 of the PDS Control Order. The District Collector dismissed the said revision by his order dated 23.8.2010. The validity of these orders are under challenge in this writ petition. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Mangalagiri, filed a report against the petitioner on 3.5.2003 setting out that the petitioner has diverted 172.05 Quintals of rice meant for distribution under 'Food for Work' scheme and hence recommended initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the dealer. Immediately, realizing the gravity of the allegations, the authorization of the writ petitioner was suspended by the Revenue Divisional Officer on 25.6.2003 pending the disciplinary proceedings. A show-cause notice was issued on 21.10.2009 by the Revenue Divisional Officer alleging that the writ petitioner has been supplied with 106.20 quintals of rice under 'food for work' scheme on 25.5.2002 and again on 11.6.2007, another 141.60 quintals was also supplied. At the time of inspection of the fair price shop by the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, Mangalagiri, on 2.5.2003, there was only 15.75 quintals of stock available physically. After verifying the records, it is realized that the petitioner has not accounted for 172.05 quintals of the rice. Therefore, the writ petitioner was called upon to show-cause as to why his authorization shall not be cancelled for the mis-utilisation of the rice supplied to the petitioner for distribution to those who have participated under the 'food for work' scheme.

(2.) The petitioner has asserted that that the rice supplied to him was meant for distribution amongst the coolies (workmen) engaged for laying of cement road in the village and hence he delivered the rice to the contractor concerned with good faith with the consent of the concerned Engineer who assured that the necessary coupons would be collected from them and would be handed over later on. But, that did not happen and it was misconstrued by the respondents as if the petitioner has misused the rice.

(3.) The Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur passed orders dt. 10.12.2009 setting out that the explanation offered by the petitioner is not convincing. Since the petitioner has not accounted for 172.05 quintals of rice meant for distribution under food for work scheme which is worth Rs. 23,77,073.10 and thus misappropriated money for his personal gain. The R. D. O. passed orders canceling the authorization of the writ petitioner. In terms of Clause 20 of the Public Distribution System (Control) Orders, 1980, an appeal would lie to the Joint Collector against the orders of cancellation of RDO and accordingly, the writ petitioner availed the appellate remedy. The writ petitioner has alleged that no proper enquiry has been conducted in the matter and that only a presumption was sought to be drawn against the petitioner by the RDO that he has not accounted for the PDS rice supplied for the food for wok scheme. Before the Joint Collector, the Deputy Tahsildar, Civil Supplies, Mangalagiri appeared at the time of hearing of the appeal and produced a copy of statement said to have been made by the petitioner on 2.5.2003, at the time of inspection of his shop and in that statement, the petitioner has agreed that he sold away 172.05 quintals of rice in open market due to certain family problems. However, since the writ petitioner was not in a position to account for the huge quantity of rice supplied to him, the Joint Collector has considered it unnecessary to interfere with the orders of cancellation passed by the RDO on 10.12.2009, accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. Then the petitioner carried the matter further in revision to the District Collector in terms of Clause 21 of the PDS Control Orders. The District Collector passed final orders on 23.8.2010 rejecting the revision preferred by the petitioner as he could not find any infirmity in the orders of the RDO as confirmed by the Joint Collector in canceling the authorization of the fair price shop.