Y GOPAL Vs. JOINT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these three Writ Petitions, the grievance of the petitioners, who are fair price shop dealers is common, namely, their authorizations have been suspended by respondent No. 3. When these cases came up for admission on 18-6-2013, this Court has found material inconsistency between the second proviso to sub-clause (7) of Clause-5 of the A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2008 (for short "the Control Order") and paragraph No. 12(5) of the Annexure to G.O.Ms. No. 4, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS. I) Department, dated 19-2-2011. Under the Control Order, the disciplinary authority, namely, the Assistant Supply Officer or the Tahsildar, as the case may be, is empowered to exercise the power of suspension of authorization for a period not exceeding 90 days. However, under paragraph No. 12(5) of the Annexure to the above mentioned G.O., the power of suspension or cancellation of authorization or forfeiture of security deposit cannot be exercised by any officer other than the appointing authority. Therefore, this Court has passed an order on 18-6-2013 directing the Ex-officio Secretary to the Government to explain the above mentioned incongruity.

(2.) To-Day, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies placed before the Court G.O.Ms. No. 38, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS. I) Department, dated 17-9-2012, wherein the Government has amended the Control Order by deleting the second proviso to sub-clause (7) of Clause-5 thereof. He has also placed a copy of letter dated 22-6-2013 addressed by the Commissioner of Civil Supplies to the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, wherein the above mentioned amendment was referred to and stated that with the issue of G.O.Ms. No. 38 dated 17-9-2012, the inconsistency ceased to exist.

(3.) Unfortunately, many Tahsildars in the State do not appear to be aware of the above noted amendment and have been continuing to exercise their power under the second proviso to sub-clause (7) of Clause-5 of the Control Order. The present cases stand as an example for such exercise of power. Inasmuch as respondent No. 3 is denuded of the power and jurisdiction to suspend authorization of fair price shop dealers in view of deletion of the second proviso to sub-clause (7) of Clause-5 of the Control Order, the impugned orders whereby respondent No. 3 has suspended the petitioners' authorizations cannot be sustained and the same are accordingly set-aside. This order, however, does not preclude the licensing authority, namely, respondent No. 2 to initiate appropriate proceedings at his option. The Ex-officio Secretary to the Government, Civil Supplies Department, is directed to issue a circular informing the Tahsildars in the State of the amendment made to the Control Order vide G.O.Ms. No. 38, dated 17-9-2012 with the direction to them not to exercise the power of suspension of fair price shop authorizations to avoid passing of such orders by the Tahsildars in future.