M VANAJA Vs. B BALASESHANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether a temporary fair price shop dealer falls within the ambit and scope of the expression "any aggrieved person" used in Clauses 20 and 21 of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001 (for short, 'the Control Order') is the question, which has been referred by the Division Bench to the Larger Bench in view of apparently conflicting opinions expressed by the two Division Benches in B. Maheswaramma v. M. Ramasubbamma, 1995 (3) ALD 461 = 1996 (1) ALT 274 and judgment dated 19-3-1997 rendered in Writ Appeal No.1146 of 1995.

(2.) For deciding the aforementioned question, it will be useful to notice the background facts. Writ Appeal No. 1805 of 2005 M. Vanaja v. B. Balaseshanna and others

(3.) Respondent No. 1-5. Balaseshanna was appointed as fair price shop dealer of U. Bollavaram Village, Mahanandi Mandal, Kurnool District prior to 1975. On 10-8-2001, his authorisation was suspended by Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal (respondent No.4) on the allegations that he was absent at the time of inspection on 1-8-2001, that he sold 30 quintals of Rice in black market, that he contravened the conditions of authorisation and that he did not take release order for essential commodities. After six months, the appellant was appointed as temporary fair price shop dealer vide proceedings dated 7-2-2002. Respondent No.1 challenged his suspension by filing an appeal under Clause 20 of the Control Order, which was disposed of by Joint Collector, Kurnool (respondent No.3) vide his order dated 9-12-2004. Respondent No.3, restored the authorisation of respondent No.l after imposing fine of Rs.800/- and forfeiting the security deposit. The appellant challenged that order by filing revision under Clause 21 of the Control Order. She also filed an application for stay. By an order dated 22-1-2005, respondent No.2 suspended the operation of order dated 9-12-2004.