Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Jagarlamudi Lakshminarayana vs District Collector And Ors. on 29 August, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1996(2)ALD(CRI)885, 1996(4)ALT46
ORDER M.N. Rao, J.
1. This Writ Appeal is directed against the Order of a learned single Judge in W.P.No.3172 of 1991, dated 8-3-1991 dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellant herein challenging the Order of the District Collector, Prakasam district, Ongole, dated 19-2-1991 in Dis.10032/90 setting aside, in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction, the appointment of the appellant as a fair price shop dealer for distribution of essential commodities.
2. The appellant herein was originaily appointed on a temporary basis on 19-12-1988 to distribute essential commodities to card holders of Karamchedu village. On 26-2-1990, a notification was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole calling applications for appointment of fair price shop dealer on permanent basis. The appellant and others applied for the post and after interviewing the candidates on 18-7-1990, the Revenue Divisional Officer appointed the appellant herein. That action was challenged in an appeal by the 6th respondent - a rival candidate - on 16-8-1990. The appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority, viz., Joint Collector, on 1-11-1990. Aggrieved by that, a revision was filed to the Collector, which was allowed on 19-2-1991 on the ground that the appellant herein was convicted in a Criminal Case C.C.No.225 of 1978, dated 19-12-1980 and sentenced to six months imprisonment for an offence involving outraging the modesty of a woman, that the 6th respondent was financially more sound and that he was also better qualified from the point of view of educational qualification, in that he is a B.Com. degree holder as against the appellant, who studied upto 9th class.
3. Challenging this revisional Order, the appellant filed W.P.No.3172 of 1991 which, as already stated, was dismissed by the learned single Judge on the ground that one of the conditions to be fulfilled for eligibility to be appointed as an Agent for distributing essential commodities is that the person 'should not have been subjected to the civil/criminal action' and, therefore, the rejection of the claim of the appellant for dealership was proper and justified.
4. Sri C. Kodanda Ram, the learned counsel for the appellant, has argued that the view taken by the learned single Judge was not correct; every person, who at one time was convicted for a criminal offence should not irrespective of the time lag between the date of conviction and the application for distributorship, be disqualified for appointment as a distributor. If this type of attitude of the revenue authorities is to be accepted, it will result in many people losing their right to be considered for appointment as distributors of essential commodities. He also has endeavoured to invite our attention to the provisions in certain statutes under which the limitation has been prescribed between the date of conviction and the date of application for consideration for any office or post.
5. We are not inclined to accept the submissions of Sri C. Kodanda Ram. The Revenue Divisional Officer in the Advertisement dated 26-2-1990 has indicated certain conditions which must be fulfilled by persons applying for dealership. One of the conditions is that 'the applicant should not have been subjected to the civil/criminal action'. Very wisely this condition was imposed. 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 suffer very badly and that public also would be subjected to inconveniences and also hardships. The possibility of the distributor misbehaving with the women customers also cannot be ruled out. Evidently, keeping these aspects in view, the Revenue Divisional Officer has prescribed as one of the conditions that the applicant should not have been subjected to civil / criminal action. We do not want to go in to a comparative analysis of the wisdom or otherwise of certain other enactments in which on a lesser scale persons with criminal background in the past were permitted to hold public offices. Such an exercise, in our considered view, is unnecessary in this case. What is more, the rejection of the appellant's application for dealership was for three reasons (i) Educationally compared with the 6th respondent he is at much lower level - as already indicated the 6th respondent is a Graduate in Commerce, whereas the appellant has passed only IX Class; (ii) financially the 6th respondent was more sound, and (iii) from character point of view the appellant was convicted for an offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced to six months imprisonment. We do not find absolutely any ground to interfere with the discretion exercised by the revisional authority in rejecting the claim of the applicant.
6. The Writ Appeal, therefore, failed and accordingly it is dismissed. No costs.