M A GHANI Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as a fair price shop dealer in the year 1992 in respect of shop No.17 of Gadwal village. A show causes notice, dated 20.07.2004 was issued by the 3rd respondent alleging that the petitioner is not residing at Gadwal Village and that the fair price shop is being run by different persons in benami. The wife of the petitioner submitted explanation on 02.08.2004 stating that the petitioner is suffering from certain ailments and has become seriously indebted. She also pleaded that in the absence of the petitioner, herself and other family members were running the shop and there was no violation on the part of the petitioner. Not being satisfied with the explanation, the 3rd respondent cancelled the authorization of the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, he preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent. The appeal was also dismissed on 15.01.2005. The same is challenged in this writ petition.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned the Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. In the show cause notice, dated 20.07.2004, the 3rd respondent framed two charges against the petitioner and they read as under: 1. That the F.P. Shop dealer is not residing in the village and neither submitted resignation nor informed to concerned authorities before leaving the village for long period. 2. That the F.P. Shop dealer has handed over the F.P. Shop to unauthorized (Benami) person. An explanation was submitted by the wife of the petitioner. It was stated that the petitioner is an asthma patient and he is visiting Kurnool frequently for treatment. A further averment was made to the effect that the family is dependant upon the income from the fair price shop and it became indebted to meet the expenditure for the treatment of the petitioner. The 3rd respondent recorded a finding that the charges against the petitioner are proved and thereby cancelled the authorization. The 1st respondent took note of the explanation offered by the wife of the petitioner and ultimately confirmed the order of cancellation.

(3.) In the explanation submitted in response to the show cause notice, the circumstances under which the petitioner had to visit Kurnool for treatment have been indicated. The 1st respondent has noted the fact that the petitioner had to visit Kurnool for treatment of Asthma. Neither the 3rd respondent in the order of cancellation nor the 1st respondent in his order in the appeal disbelieved the said version. Both of them proceeded on the footing that the petitioner ought to have informed the authorities before leaving the Village. It is not as if the petitioner is a regular Government employee and that he needs the permission of the revenue authorities before leaving the village. Further, the commodities to the fair price shop are supplied once in a month and the distribution will be completed hardly within a period of one week. The respondents cannot insist that fair price shop dealer shall remain in the village through out, irrespective of the fact whether the essential commodities are already distributed.