MD SALEEM Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER BODHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed against the order dt. 19-7-1993 passed by the 1st respondent cancelling the authorisation to run Nehrunagar Fair Price Shop, Yedpally. After passing the impugned order, the authorisation to run the shop was granted to the 3rd respondent. The impugned order reads as follows:

(2.) It appears that proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') were initiated against the petitioner on finding certain irregularities on the inspection of Fair Price Shop at Hunsa, of which the petitioner was kept in-charge during the year 1991.

(3.) Ex-fade, the impugned order is illegal and unsustainable. The mere fact that an order was passed under Section 6-A of the Act confiscating the stock found in the Fair Price Shop was considered to be sufficient to cancel the authorisation issued under the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities (Distribution by Card System) Order. In M/s. Triplex Agencies, Chittoor vs. District Collector and in B. Satyanarayana vs. Joint Collector, I have held that the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act are quite distinct from the proceedings under the Control Order and the mere fact that the action was initiated under Section 6-A of the Act does not automatically result in suspension or cancellation of the authorisation of the Fair Price Shop. I have taken the view that the Competent Authority exercising the power under the A.P. Scheduled Commodities (Distribution by Card System) Order or any other Control Order has to independently apply its mind to the charges against the dealer and take its own decision instead of being led away by the initiation of the proceedings under Section 6-A of the B.C. Act. I have also clarified that it is iopen to the Competent Authority, while deciding upon the action to be taken under the Control Order to take into account the relevant material that would have come to light from Section 6-A proceedings. The ratio of the said judgments applies with greater force in this case inasmuch as the authorisation has been cancelled, but not merely suspended pending enquiry. The 1st respondent erred in assuming that the final order passed by the Joint Collector in 86-A proceedings automatically brings about the cancellation of the authorisation and both are inextricably mixed up. Whether or not the authorisation is to be cancelled is a matter of independent decision to be taken by the Competent Authority exercising the power under the Control Order.