M.YASODAMMA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed for declaring the orders of the 1st respondent passed in Government Memo No.813/CS-I.1/2013, dated 04-04-2013 whereby and whereunder the revision petition was allowed and granted stay of operation of the orders passed by the District Collector, Chittoor till disposal of the case, as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act and the A.P. State Public Distribution (Control) Order, 2008 and for setting aside the same and for a consequential direction to the respondents not to interfere with the functioning of the fair price shop by the petitioner till her authorization is subsisting.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that she was issued fair price shop authorisation under the provisions of A.P. Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2001 for Shop No.58A, Yerrapalli, Ramasamudram Mandal in 2003 and since then she is supplying of stocks to the public without any complaint. An inspection was conducted in the shop of the petitioner on 11-08-2010 and due to some variations, her authorisation was suspended by issuing suspension-cum-show cause notice vide proceedings No.R.O.C.53/6094A/2010, dated 21-08-2010. It is stated that through the same proceedings, the 4th respondent framed charges and directed the petitioner to submit her explanation for the charges pursuance to which the petitioner submitted her explanation, but the 4th respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalle without considering the said explanation, cancelled the authorisation vide proceedings in D.Dis.No.A3/6094A/2010, dated 16-04-2011 against which, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 3rd respondent-Joint Collector, Chittoor, who is Appellate Authority as contemplated under clause 20 (2) (i) of the Control Order, 2008 and the same was allowed by order dated 31-07-2012. Thereafter, the said orders were implemented and the petitioner was reinstated as a fair price shop dealer as per the proceedings of the 3rd respondent-Joint Collector and that on payment of the amount towards release of the stocks, stocks were released in favour of the petitioner and she has been distributing the stocks from 01-10-2012 onwards. Meanwhile, the 6th respondent filed revision before the 2nd respondent-District Collector, Chittoor against the orders dated 31-07-2012 wherein the 2nd respondent stayed the operation of the order dated 31-07-2012 passed by the 3rd respondent-Joint Collector and ultimately dismissed the revision filed by the 6th respondent vide proceedings dated 02-03-2013. Challenging the said orders, the 6th respondent filed revision before the 1st respondent under Clause 21 (ii) of the Control Order, 2001 wherein the 1st respondent granted stay of operation of the order dated 02-03-2013 passed by the 2nd respondent-District Collector, Chittoor, through impugned memo dated 04-04-2013. Assailing the said Government memo, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 was repealed by clause 25 of the Control Order 2008, as such, the revision under clause 21 of the Control Order, 2001 is incompetent and not maintainable. He also contends that before passing the impugned order, no notice was issued to the petitioner as contemplated under Clause 21 of the Control Order. He also contends that that the 6th respondent is not a card holder and has no locus standi to challenge the order passed by the 2nd respondent. He further contends that no second revision is maintainable inasmuch as the 2nd respondent has already entertained the revision and dismissed the same and that the 6th respondent simply stating that he is representing the cardholders went on harassing the petitioner and also the 1st respondent should not have entertained the revision at the instance of the 6th respondent. The 6th respondent having grudge against the petitioner went on harassing the petitioner after filing petition one after the other at whose instance the 1st respondent should not have passed orders. In support of his contentions, he relied on M. Vanaja v. B. Balaseshanna and others, 2007 4 ALD 388.