LAWS(APH)-2005-3-2

S MALLA REDDY Vs. M VIJAYALAKSHMI

Decided On March 30, 2005
S.MALLA REDDY Appellant
V/S
M.VIJAYALAKSHMI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Card-holder has filed this appeal, against the order of learned single Judge allowing the writ petition of the first respondent and thereby staying the order of cancellation of dealership pending disposal of appeal before the Joint collector.

(2.) We have heard the counsel for the parties.

(3.) Writ petitioner was appointed dealer of fair price shop of Athiralladinne Village, Anantapur District. On 10th July, 2004, show cause notice was issued on three charges saying that the fair price shop dealer had diverted 156 kgs of rice to black market for pecuniary gains and deprived benefits to the poor rard holders. For these three charges, she was directed to explain as to why the fair price shop dealership should not be suspended. The authorization was suspended during pendency of enquiry on 2nd August, 2004. Aggrieved by the said order, appeal was preferred by the writ petitioner and when no interim orders were passed, W.P.No.14030 of 2004 was filed. The said Writ Petition was disposed of directing that pending the appeal, writ petitioner shall continue to function as fair price shop dealer. In the meanwhile, some enquiry was conducted by the Mandal Revenue Officer and submitted his report on 27th September, 2004 not only against the three charges but also reporting further irregularities. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur concluded, after going through the report of enquiry, that it was proved beyond doubt that the writ petitioner was doing serious irregularities in distribution of essential commodities to the card holders which needs rigorous punishment and proceeded to pass order of cancellation of authorization forthwith in the interest of Public Distribution System. Against this order, appeal was preferred by the writ petitioner before the Joint Collector. Again when no interim order was passed therein, W.P.No.2192 of 2005 was filed, which was allowed by learned single Judge with direction that during the pendency of appeal, writ petitioner shall be entitled to function as fair price shop dealer since prima facie, the show cause notice itself was bad.