L SANKARA NAIDU Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR CHITTOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was the authorised fair price shop dealer and he had obtained an authorisation from respondent No.3 - Revenue Divisional Officer under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1973 hereinafter shortly referred to as the Order'. The third respondent received a report from the Mobile Squad Deputy Tahsildar, office of the Collector, Chittoor dated 10-9-1991 alleging that the writ petitioner had committed certain irregularities in the maintenance of accounts and in distribution of essential commodities to the card holders during the months of March to August, 1991 and requesting him to take necessary action against the petitioner. The third respondent, basing on the said report of the Mobile Squad Deputy Tahsildar, suspended the authorisation granted to the petitioner by his proceedings dated 21-9-1991 pending on enquiry into the allegations levelled against the petitioner. The charges levelled against the petitioner were the following: "Charge No.I: During the enquiry Sri Jayasankar Naidu card holder No.520417 stated that the dealer is selling rice at Rs.2-00 and sugar at 5.75 per Kg. and the dealer is not giving essential commodities to his card when he approaches and the dealer is also using harsh words when he approaches for essential commodities. Charge No.II: That the dealer is distributing essential commodities in lesser weight of 50 gms per Kg. and not giving bills to any commodity. Charge No.III: That the dealer has not distributed rice to the following cards in the month of 7.91 and misused the stock in clandestine disposal. (1) 502984, (2) 427942, (3) 502995, (4) 502982, (5) 531220. Charge No.IV: That the dealer has distributed rice to the following cards in one signature on the following dates and manipulated the accounts and misused the stocks in clandestine disposal: (Details of cards omitted) Charge No.V: That the dealer has distributed sugar to the following cards in one signature on the following dates and manipulated the accounts and misused the stocks in clandestine disposal. (Details of cards omitted) Charge VI: That the dealer has distributed kerosene to the following card holders in one signature on the following dates and maniputed the accounts and misused the stock in clandestine disposal. (Details of card holders omitted) Charge No.VII: Duirng the year 1990 the dealer has committed irregularities in maintaining accounts and in distribution of essential commodities to the card holders and was fined Rs.1,000/- and was warned to be more careful in the functioning of P.P. shop and maintenance of accounts in future. But the dealer has again committed grave irregularities.

(2.) The third respondent after perusing the explanations offered by the petitioner and after hearing the petitioner, made the order on 23-12-1991 recording a finding that the charges 1 to 3 are not proved and the remaining charges 4 to 7are proved. In that view of the matter the third respondent felt that it was highly prejudicial to the public interest to continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer and in the light of the opinion reached by him. He cancelled the authorisation issued to the petitioner under the Order. Being aggrieved by the said order of the third respondent the petitioner preferred an appeal to the second respondent-Joint Collector under the provisionsof the Order. Before the second respondent the petitioner filed certain representations of the card holders to the effect that they used to get the essential commodities from the shop by utilising the services of the third parties. The Joint Collector too after appreciation of the arguments advanced before him on behalf of the petitioner and other materials placed before him affirmed the order made by the third respondent and rejected the appeal. Even the further revision preferred by the petitioner to the first respondent-District Collector under the provisions of the Order failed and hence this writ petition.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner advanced only one argument before the Court to assail the order made by the District Collector and the subordinate authorities. The contention was that the Joint Collector as well as the District Collector are not justified in passing the impugned orders without reference to or consideration of the statements and the representations of the certain card holders which were filed before them in support of his defence. According to the learned Counsel this lapse on the part of the District Collector and the Joint Collector in not considering the relevant materials vitiates the impugned orders. That was the only argument advanced before the Court and no other point was urged.