B BALA SESHANNA Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner assails the orders dated 9-12-2004 passed by first respondent herein whereby and whereunder orders passed by second respondent were stayed pending consideration of revision petition filed under Clause 21 of A.P.State Public Distribution System Control Order 2001 (2001 Control Order) against orders of second respondent. The order is assailed mainly on the ground that fourth respondent, who is a temporary fair price shop dealer of U.Bollavaram Village has no locus standi to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of first respondent. Strong reliance is placed on a decision in Alapati Soma Sekhar v. Collector, Krishna District.

(2.) The facts of the matter, in brief, may be noticed. The petitioner was appointed as fair price shop dealer of U. Bollavaram Village some time prior to 1975. Third respondent herein suspended the authorization on 10-8-2001 on the allegations that he was absent on 1-8-2001 at the time of inspection, that he diverted thirty quintals of rice to black market, that he contravened the conditions of authorization and that he has not taken release order for essential commodities. After suspending petitioner, fourth respondent was appointed as temporary fair price shop dealer by proceedings dt.7-2-2002 passed by third respondent. The petitioner preferred appeal before second respondent, who by order dt. 9-12-2004 took a lenient view, imposed fine of Rs. 800/- and forfeited security deposit and restored authorization of the petitioner. The petitioner has been reinstated by third respondent by order dt. 7-1-2005. Aggrieved by this, fourth respondent preferred revision under Clause 21 of the 2001 Control Order who stayed the proceedings of second respondent by the impugned order.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner placed strong reliance on the decision in Alapati Soma Sekhar v. Collector, Krishna Districf in support of the contention that there is no jurisdiction to first respondent to entertain revision on behalf of temporary fair price shop dealer. Per contra, learned counsel for fourth respondent Sri E. Ayyapu Reddy submits that after coming into force of 2001 Control Order with effect from 6-4-2002 fourth respondent, who was appointed as temporary fair price shop dealer, shall be deemed to be permanent dealer and therefore her appointment cannot be treated as temporary dealership.