LAWS(APH)-1996-2-76

M NAVANEETHA SMT Vs. MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER KODANGAL

Decided On February 15, 1996
M.NAVANEETHA Appellant
V/S
MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER, KODANGAL, MAHABUBNAGAR DISTRICT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a Fair Price Shop Dealer. On 6-2-1995 a show-cause-notice was issued to her by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narayanapet, mentioning the following irregularities: (1) Dealer is not present in the shop at the time of supply. (2) Distributing 15 Kgs. by noting 20 Kgs. in the cards. (3) Blackmarketing balance rice. (4) Not maintaining register properly.

(2.) On 14-2-1995, the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation denying the said allegations. With regard to the second charge she stated that out of the total number of 357 cards allotted to her shop, 20 cards were eliminated as bogus cards and the supply of essential commodities was limited to the remaining 337 cards only. After some time, on representation made by those 20 card-holders, their cards were restored,but the supply of essential commodities was not proportionately increased and thereby she was obliged to distribute only 15 Kgs. instead of 20 Kgs. to the cardholders.

(3.) After considering her explanation, the Revenue Divisional Officer, by his order dated 2-5-1995, cancelled the authorisation of the petitioner and directed the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kodangal, to make alternative arrangements for supply of essential commodities to the card-holders till regular dealer is appointed in the place of the petitioner. In the said order the Revenue Divisional Officer held that the following charges are established against the petitioner: (1) The dealer has not distributed essential commodities to 15 cardholders of Bimili Thanda continuously for 4 months from December. (2) It is established during the enquiry only 15 Kgs. to the card-holders noting 20 Kg. on the card. (3) The dealer should possess a register of card-holders containing details of cards and he must show to inspecting authorities whenever demanded. Non-furnishing of card-holders register by the dealer to the authorities when demanded is illegal. (4) As per the enquiry report dated 7-1-95 of Deputy Tahsildar (ROR) the rice was not supplied from May, 1994 to December, 1994 to 13 Lambada card-holders as per their eligibility and sugar was not at all supplied.