Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Azam Sharief vs Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella ... on 31 December, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1997(1)ALT442, 1997 A I H C 1125, (1997) 1 ANDH LT 442 (1997) 1 ANDHLD 747, (1997) 1 ANDHLD 747
Author: B. Sudershan Reddy
Bench: B. Sudershan Reddy
ORDER B. Sudershan Reddy, J.
1. The petitioner prays for an appropriate Writ particularly one in the nature of Certiorari calling for the records in proceedings No. E/3958/96 dated 21-9-1996 on the file of the 1st respondent herein and quash the same by declaring it as illegal and unconstitutional. The petitioner also prays for a consequential direction to the respondents directing them to continue and permit the petitioner to run the fair price shop No. 199, Mir Mohammad Pahadi, Attapur village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District during the subsistence of the authorisation in accordance with law.
2. The petitioner herein is an authorised fair price shop dealer of Fair price shop No. 199 known as Mir Mohammad Pahadi, Attapur Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Rangareddy District. The authorisation is renewed and valid upto 31-3-1997. The authorisation is granted under the provisions of A.P. Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1973, for short 'the Control Orders'.
3. The petitioner in the instant writ petition is aggrieved by the proceedings dated 21-9-1996 issued by the 1st respondent suspending the authorisation of the petitioner pending enquiry on the ground that the petitioner is involved in a criminal case in Crime No. 200/1996 registered Under Sections 148, 302 read with 149 I.P.C. on the file of Police Station, Rajendranagar. The impugned order reads as follows:
"Through the reference cited the Assistant Supply Officer, R.R. Dist. has reported that Sri Azam Sharief, F.P. Shop Dealer of Shop No. 199 of Mir Mohammad Pahadi, H/o Attapur Village of Rajendranagar Mandal has involved in a criminal case in crime No. 200/96 Under Section 148, 302 read with 149 I.P.C. of P.S. Rajendranagar and remanded to judicial custody on 21-8-1996 and requested this office to take necessary action against the F.P.Shop dealer and for making alternative arrangements for distribution of essential commodities.
In view of the report of the ASO., R.R. Dist. and since Sri Azam Sharief, F.P. Shop Dealer of Shop No. 199, Mir Mohammad Pahadi H/o Attapur village of Rajendranagar Mandal is involved in Criminal Case No. 200/96 Under Section 148, 302 read with 149 of IPC of P.S. Rajendranagar, the Authorisation held by him to run the F.P. Shop No 199 of Mir Pahadi H/o Attapur village of Rajendranagar Mandal is suspended herewith, with immediate effect.
The A.S.O., R.R. Dist. is requested to make alternative arrangements by tagging the ration cards of the said shop to nearby F.P. Shop for distribution of essential commodities till further orders and report compliance."
The impugned order is questioned mainly on the ground that the 1st respondent has no jurisdiction under Clause 3(4) of the Control Orders. It is urged that the said control order contemplates suspension of authorisation pending enquiry but only for the reason of any malpractice or contravention of any control order or the terms and conditions of the authorisation itself. It is urged that the authorisation of fair price shop dealer cannot be kept under suspension on the ground that the dealer is involved in a criminal case unrelated to the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act or the Control Orders. In nutshell it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the authorisation can be suspended only on the ground of violation of any of the terms and conditions of the authorisation or the Control Orders under which the authorisation was granted or for the reason of violation of any of the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act. It is also urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the suspension pending enquiry in the instant case would amount to cancellation of the licence as no further enquiry could be held and the suspension would continue until the disposal of the criminal case which would take any amount of time.
4. In the counter-affidavit, it is stated that after registration of case in Crime No. 200/96 Under Section 148, 302 read with 149 I.P.C. the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 21-8-1996 and was released only on 12-9-1996 on bail. The fair price shop remained closed for more than 20 days during the period of his judicial custody. The petitioner's absence and closing the shop is incontravention of Clause 15(2) (sic. 16(2)) of the said Control Orders. The closure of the shop has caused inconvenience to the card holders, as the Essential commodities were not made available to the card holders. In such view of the matter, the authorised officer is competent to place the authorisation under suspension pending enquiry in the public interest.
5. In the reply affidavit, it is stated that even during the period from 21-8-1996 to 12-9-1996 the card holders received the essential commodities as the shop was entrusted to the petitioner's brother Mohd. Sharief by the petitioner herein.
6. It is required to notice the nature of the appointment of authorised dealers under the Control Orders and the rights, if any, conferred upon them. This court in W.P.No. 20151/96 had an occasion to consider the nature and scope of the rights conferred upon the dealers under the Control Orders and held as follows:-
"The Government in discharge of its constitutional obligations as a welfare State had undertaken the task of supplying of essential commodities to its citizens through public distribution system. The Government has decided to distribute the essential commodities through the medium of fair price shops established by the Government for which necessary authorisation is granted to various individuals, societies and other institutions from time to time depending upon the variety of factors and circumstances. Such authorisation in respect of the fair price shop created and established by the Government is granted under the provisions of the A.P. Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1973, for short 'the Control Orders'. The scheduled commodities have to-be distributed through the said fair price shop to the card holders. The authorisation itself is issued with a view to control the distribution of scheduled commodities to the card holders and to make the supplies available at pre-determined price. The authorised dealer cannot sell or supply even the scheduled commodities to any person except for house-hold consumption and at such price as may be prescribed by the State Government in this behalf. The supply is restricted only to the card holders. The authorisation would automatically come to an end and shall case to be invalid (sic. cease to be valid) when the Government undertakes the running of the authorised fair price shops either by itself or through a Government undertaking or a Corporation wholly owned by the Government under a Government scheme. The Government is also at liberty to replace all or any of the fair price shops and entrust the distribution of essential commodities through a shop set up by the State Government, State Government undertaking or a Corporation wholly owned by the State Government under a Government scheme.
The policy decision and the guidelines framed by the Government from time to time and the Control Orders would undoubtedly reveal that the paramount consideration in creating or establishing fair price shops is for the convenience of the card holders. The purpose is to supply the essential commodities to the consumers in a convenient and speedy manner avoiding inconvenience to the people and to supply all the essential commodities at a pre-determined cost. The authorisation granted by the authorities concerned does not create any right as such in a dealer except such rights which are given by the authorisation itself. No person can claim the dealership of a fair price shop as a matter of right. No person has any such legal right and muchless a fundamental right."
The Supreme Court in Sarkari Sasta Anaj Vikreta Sangh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, held that "no one can claim a right to run a fair price shop as an agent of the Government. All that he can claim is the right to be considered for appointment as an agent of the Government to run a fair price shop". Similar is the principle laid down by the Court in M.P. Ration Vikreta Sangh Society v. State of Madhya Pradesh, . In a slightly different context, a division Bench in Jagarlamudi Lakshminarayana v. District Collector, Ongole, observed that "A person, who distributes essential commodities to the card holders, comes into contact with large number of people who approach him for purchase of essential commodities. Unless the distributor is a man of good character, the image of the Government would be subjected to inconveniences and also hardships.
7. It is thus clear that no authorised dealer can claim any legal or fundamental right as such except the right which is conferred upon him by the very authorisation granted under the Control Orders. The dealer has no fundamental right to insist that he should be continued as the authorised dealer. The ultimate responsibility for providing a mechanism to distribute the essential commodities in an efficient and speedy manner to its citizens is that of the Government. The authorised dealer appointed under the Control Orders is merely an agent of the Government and bound by the decision of the Government and the guidelines issued by the Government from time to time. The guidelines issued by the Government stipulated that the candidate to be appointed as an authorised dealer should have no adverse antecedents such as criminal cases or any punishment under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 or pendency of cases under the Essential Commodities Act or pending charges under any criminal law such as legal metrology laws, marketing laws, labour laws etc. or bad conduct on record as a dealer as an individual.
8. It is however, urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the guidelines issued by the Government from time to time including the one issued in G.O.Ms.No. 198 F CS&CA(CS.IV) Department dated 5-2-1996 relate to the appointment of the dealer and they are relevant only for the purpose of appointing the candidates and once appointment is made an action can be taken against the dealer only under the Control Orders and not in accordance with the guidelines issued for the purpose of regulating the appointment. I express my inability to accede to the submissions. The guidelines issued by the Government do not run counter to the Control Orders and they can always supplement the Control Order. There is nothing wrong in the appointing authority taking the fact of the petitioner's involvement in a serious criminal case and keeping his authorisation under suspension pending enquiry.
9. It is required to notice that the petitioner herein remained absent and could not distribute the essential commodities for a period of more than 20 days during his remand in judicial custody and such absence would amount to stopping the working of the shop abruptly without reasonable cause during working hours on working days and without the prior approval of the concerned authorities. Such absence is definitely in violation of Clause 16(2) of the said Control Orders. Such unauthorised absence would give rise to cause for initiating appropriate action for keeping the authorisation under suspension in exercise of the power conferred upon under Sub-clause (4) of Clause 3 of the Control Orders, as contravention of any of the provisions of the Control Orders or violation of the conditions of any of the authorisation issued is a ground for keeping the authorisation under suspension. It is however, urged, that this aspect of the matter is not stated as a ground for suspending the authorisation and the reason stated in the counter-affidavit in support of the impugned order cannot be taken into consideration. Since it is an order of suspension pending enquiry it need not give an elaborate reason as no rights as such are adjudicated by the impugned order, as the enquiry is yet to be initiated against the petitioner. The fact that the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 21-8-1996 is within the knowledge of the authorised Officer and the impugned proceedings dated 21-9-1996 speaks about the same. It is not as if the Authorised Officer was not aware of the petitioner being remanded to judicial custody on 21-8-1996 and consequently his absence without any reasonable cause and closure of the fair price shop. The impugned order is not one in the nature which adjudicate any of the rights of the petitioner as such, but only a preliminary step taken by the competent authority for making necessary enquiry. The petitioner is always entitled to submit his explanation which shall be considered by the respondents before passing final order for cancellation of the authorisation. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the nature of the impugned order which does not substantially affect the rights of the petitioner, if any, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter and set aside the order as prayed for by the petitioner.
10. I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.