Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
R. Subhashini vs District Collector, (Civil Supplies) ... on 13 October, 2007
Equivalent citations: 2008(1)ALD678
ORDER P.S. Narayana, J.
1. On 26.10.2007, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies had taken notice and requested time to get instructions. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies had placed the instructions before this Court and submitted that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapur, had issued notices on 12.8.2005, 3.9.2005 for hearing the case on 3.9.2005 and 19.9.2005. After considering the explanation of the dealer and also after giving an opportunity of personal hearing on 3.9.2005 and finally on 17.10.2005, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapur, has cancelled her dealership vide D.Dis. No. DICS/1018/2005, dated 22.10.2005.
2. The main grievance of the writ petitioner is that the order of cancellation made is not preceded by a show-cause notice calling upon the writ petitioner to explain why the cancellation should not be effected. The learned Counsel would contend that the show-cause notice was issued calling upon the petitioner to explain why her authorization not to be suspended and in the light of the same, the impugned proceeding is bad in law. The learned Counsel placed strong reliance on the decision of this Court in M. Vijya Lakshmi v. Joint Collector, Anantapur, Ananthapur District and Ors. 2005 (2) ALD (NOC 134).
3. The writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the order dated 5.10.2007 in Rc. No. K4/ATP/164/06 on the file of the first respondent, order dated 8.2.2006 in D.Dis. No. K4/ATP/l 146/05 on the file of the 2nd respondent and the order dated 22.10.2005 in D.Dis. Dl/CS/1018/2005 on the file of the 3rd respondent, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and violative of principles of natural justice and pass such other orders.
4. It is stated by the petitioner that she was appointed as fair price shop dealer for Shop No. 13 of Guntakal Village and Mandal in Ananthapur District, in the year 1979. Since then she has been distributing the essential commodities to all the cardholders attached to her shop without any complaint.
5. It is further stated that while so, some persons who are inimical to the petitioner and who want to dislodge her from fair price shop dealership, seem to have lodged a false complaint before the 4th respondent herein. Basing on the ex parte report submitted by the 4th respondent behind her back, the 3rd respondent herein has issued show-cause notice dated 16.7.2005 in Rc. No. Dl/CS/ 1018/2005 alleging following irregularities and she was called upon to submit her explanation.
(a) Fair price shop dealer entrusted the entire fair price shop to one Sri Pullaiah who is running the shop as benami.
(b) The benami fair price shop dealer is distributing the essential commodities for 2 to 3 days in a month.
(c) The fair price shop dealer is residing in Gooty instead of Guntakal.
(d) Fair price shop dealer has not displayed the stock cum price list board.
(e) Fair price shop dealer violated Condition No. 7 of the authorization by selling the commodities at excess rates.
(f) Fair price shop dealer is selling the commodities with less weighment.
(g) Fair price shop dealer is in the habit of abusing the cardholders.
(h) Fair price shop dealer is distributing the rice which are not fit for human consumption.
To the above said show-cause notice, she has submitted her explanation on 10.8.2005 denying the charges levelled against her. She has informed the 3rd respondent that since she underwent back bone surgery, she was taking the assistance of Mr. Pullaiah, the stock cum price list board was maintained duly mentioning the stock particulars and that the commodities are being sold at correct prices with proper weighment. In her explanation, she has also requested the 3rd respondent to furnish her a copy of the report submitted by the 4th respondent so as to enable her to submit an effective reply. But without considering the same in proper perspective and without furnishing her the report of the 4th respondent, the 3rd respondent has passed order dated 22.10.2005 in D.Dis. No. Dl/CS/1018/2005, cancelling her authorization in respect of Fair Price Shop No. 13. In fact, without giving the petitioner proper opportunity and personal hearing, the authorities cannot straightaway cancel her authorization. She stated that the impugned order of cancellation having issued notice for suspension, and subsequently passing order of cancellation suffers from basic infirmity and the same is liable to be set aside by this Court.
6. Questioning the order passed by 3rd respondent, she preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent. When stay orders were not granted pending disposal of the appeal, she approached this Court by filing W.P. No. 26398 of 2005 and this Court was pleased to give a finding that authorities cannot cancel the authorization without giving personal opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the appellate authority ought not to have rejected the stay application. By holding so, this Court was pleased to dispose of the said writ petition directing the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and pending disposal of the appeal, the order of the 3rd respondent was stayed. Thereafter, on an erroneous view of law and facts, by order dated 8.2.2006 in D.Dis. No. K4/ATP/l 146/05, the 2nd respondent was pleased to dismiss the appeal filed by her and confirmed the order of the 3rd respondent.
7. As against the order passed by the 2nd respondent, she preferred revision before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent in a routine and mechanical manner, has dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner by order dated 5.10.2007 in Rc. No. K4/ATP/ 164/06 which was served on her on 15.10.2007, by confirming the orders passed by respondents 2 and 3.
8. It is also further stated that the orders passed by respondents 1 to 3 are illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. The impugned orders are a result of external political pressures exerted on the authorities with a view to remove the petitioner from dealership. The impugned orders suffer from basic infirmities and are liable to be set aside by this Court. By keeping her in dark as to the contents of report submitted by the 4th respondent, the impugned orders are passed which itself shows the arbitrariness on the part of the authorities. The impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent is not substantiated with any corroborative material evidence except the political pressures exerted on him and the appellate authority as well as revisional authority have merely confirmed the same without application of mind. In fact, the authorities ought to have seen that the charge of benami is not established anywhere in the proceedings.
9. It is also further stated that the 3rd respondent lacks jurisdiction to pass any order cancelling or suspending the authorization of fair price shop dealers pending enquiry. In fact, G.O. Ms. No. 8 of 2006 clearly says that only Tahsildar/Mandal Revenue Officer is vested with jurisdiction to enquire into the matter, and cancel/ suspend the authorization. In the instant case, passing impugned order by the 3rd respondent is irregular. On this sole ground, the impugned order is liable to be set aside by this Court. She submits that she was allowed to supply the essential commodities till 15.10.2007. However, in view of passing of impugned order by the 1st respondent dismissing her appeal, the authorities are not supplying essential commodities to her. The 1st respondent failed to exercise the revisional jurisdiction vested in him in proper perspective. She submits that she has been eking out her livelihood out of the small commission amount which she derives by running the fair price shop, In view of the impugned orders, she was deprived of her livelihood without there being any valid reasons or justification.
10. The show-cause notice dated 16.7.2005 after referring to certain charges ultimately specifies as hereunder:
For the above irregularities Smt. Subhashini, FP Shop Dealer of Shop No. 13 of Guntakal is directed to explain as to why the FP Shop Dealership should not be suspended pending enquiry within seven days from the date of receipt of this show-cause notice failing which action will be taken on the material available on record.
11. In the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 22.10.2005, the commencement portion of the proceedings reads as hereunder:
Sub:-Civil Supplies, Anantapur Division, Guntakal Mandal and town-allegation against Subhasini, FP shop dealer-Enquiry report received-show-cause notice issued-Explanation called for- Explanation received- Final orders passed.
Read:-1.M.R.O., Guntakal Rc. No. 143/2005 dated 9.7.2005
2. This Office SCN vide Rc. No. Dl/CS/1018/ 2005, dated 16.7.2005
3. Explanation of the delinquent dealer dated 10.8.2005.
12. The learned Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to the last portion of the said order which reads as hereunder:
Therefore, the FP shop authorization held by Smt. R. Subhasini, FP shop dealer of Shop No. 13 of Guntakal Town and Mandal is hereby cancelled.
13. Hence, the main grievance of the petitioner is that when the show-cause notice was issued for the purpose of calling for explanation relating to suspension pending enquiry, the cancellation made by the Revenue Divisional Officer is bad in law. In the decision referred to supra in M. Vijya Lakshmi v. Joint Collector, Ananthapur, Ananthapur District and Ors. (supra), the learned Judge of this Court observed that in the instant case, prima facie, it is evident that the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner was the one proposing suspension of the authorization, whereas the 2nd respondent cancelled the authorization on the strength of such notice. On the face of it, such a course of action is impermissible.
14. In the light of the same, the proceedings are hereby quashed giving liberty to the respondents to initiate further proceedings in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.