Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Ch.Venkanna vs The Joint Collector ( Civil ... on 20 March, 2012
Author: Nooty Ramamohana Rao
Bench: Nooty Ramamohana Rao
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.7626 of 2012
20.03.2012
Ch.Venkanna
The Joint Collector ( Civil Supplies)Warangal, Warangal District & two others.
Counsel for the Appellant: Sri A.Prabhakar Rao
Counsel for the respondents: G.P for Civil Supplies
< Gist:
> Head Note:
? CITATIONS:
1.2011 (1) ALT 485
ORDER
This writ petition is filed by a fair price shop dealer of Shop No.40, Peddanagaram Village, Narsimhulupeta Mandal, Warangal District, challenging the validity of the orders passed on 31st December, 2011 by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubabad suspending with immediate effect the authorization issued in favour of the writ petitioner for running and maintaining a fair price shop as he was involved in a criminal case, pursuant to which he was suspended and remanded to judicial custody for 18 days.
The case of the petitioner is that he was a regular fair price shop dealer of Shop No.40, Peddanagaram Village, Narsimhulupeta Mandal, Warangal District, and he was unnecessarily involved in Cr.No.94 of 2011 by the rival group in the village and on the pretext that he was remanded to judicial custody for a spell of 18 days, the Revenue Divisional Officer has passed the impugned order suspending the authorization issued earlier in favour of the petitioner.
Heard Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.
Learned counsel for the writ petitioner would submit that the petitioner has not contravened any of the conditions contained in the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 (for short "PDS Control Order") nor was any case booked against him for violation of the provisions contained under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and hence, the authorization issued in favour of the petitioner could not have been suspended at all by the Revenue Divisional Officer. It is further contended that as per Clause 5 (7) of the afore mentioned order, the authorization of a fair price shop dealer is liable to be cancelled if he has been convicted by a Court of law in respect of contravention of any order made under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 relating to any of the conditions mentioned in the Schedule to the PDS Control Order. However, if such conviction is set aside in appeal or revision, the appointing authority is required to issue re-authorization to such a person and it is therefore contended by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the petitioner's involvement in some other offence could not have provided a reasonable basis for action to be taken against the petitioner resulting in suspension of his authorization. It is contended that Cr.No.94 of 2011 was booked for the offences said to have been committed under Sections 418, 420, 406, 409, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC and they have nothing to do with any of the scheduled commodities or any of the orders made in pursuance of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act and hence his authorization could not have been suspended.
Learned counsel has also placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by this Court in Banoth Ramesh v. State of A.P.1 wherein it is held that in the absence of any provision bringing about automatic termination of the authorization on account of pendency of a criminal case, the petitioner cannot be deprived of his right to run the fair price shop on the mere allegation of registration of a criminal case, that too on a charge, which is unconnected with the running of the fair price shop.
It is a fact that the writ petitioner is not proceeded against for any alleged violation of the orders made in terms of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, per se. But, however, the PDS Control Order, 2008 dealt with all aspects relating to selection and appointment and continuance of dealers for fair price shops, nominated retailers, hawkers and other similar establishments. It is also true that Clause 5 of the aforementioned Order dealt with levy of penalty that can be imposed. Clause 5 (5) clearly authorizes that the appointing authority, which expression has been defined in Clause 2 (d) of the Order, may at any time whether at the request of the authorized fair price shop dealer/nominated retailer/hawker or authorized establishment or suo motu after making such enquiry as may be deemed necessary and for reasons to be recorded in writing, add to amend, vary, suspend or cancel the authorization issued or deemed to be issued to him under this clause. It is also true that Clause 5 (7) makes it clear that if any of the fair price shop dealer/ nominated retailer/hawker has been convicted by a Court of law in respect of contravention of any Order Under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 relating to any of the conditions mentioned in the Schedule to the said Order, the said appointing authority shall by order in writing cancel his authorization. The proviso added there to makes the position clear that in case such conviction is set aside in appeal or revision, the appointing authority may on application in Form No.1 made by the person whose authorization has been cancelled, re- issue the authorization to such a person.
To my mind there is a distinction existing between a situation arising under Clause 5 (5) and 5 (7). Clause 5 (5) gives scope for the appointing authority suo motu to take action against a fair price shop dealer/nominated retailer/hawker or authorized establishment after conducting such enquiry as is necessary in the matter and for reasons to be recorded in writing may add to, amend, vary suspend or cancel the authorization. Thus Clause 5 (5) gives room for taking action resulting in cancellation of an authorization for reasons which have larger implication of public interest.
Per contra, Clause 5 (7) can be invoked by the appointing authority for cancellation of the authorization only in the event of conviction by a Court of law in respect of contravention of any order made under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act,1955 resulting to any of the conditions mentioned in the Schedule to the PDS Control Order. The PDS Control Order listed out 12 items in it's schedule. Therefore, Clause 5 (7) comes into operation only in the event of a conviction by a competent Court of law but not otherwise and that too when the offence is said to be arising out of contravention of any of the orders made in terms of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 concerning any of these 12 items listed.
It will be appropriate to notice that Clause 19 of the PDS Control Order requires the authorized fair price shop dealers to follow the conditions stipulated in Para -2 of the Annexure I of the said order. It will be important to notice that Annexure-I comprises of two paragraphs. First paragraph dealt with eligibility criteria for below poverty line families, while paragraph No.2 listed out other conditions to be observed by the fair price shop dealer. Paragraph No.2 (5) of annexure-I will have some bearing on the controversy at issue and hence it is proper to extract the same herein below.
"The authorization issued under the order shall be liable for suspension or cancellation as the case may be, if the Fair Price Shop dealer/nominated retailer/hawker is involved in any criminal case or when any case under Essential Commodities Act, 1955 or any other similar law is pending against him/her."
The above quoted condition clearly indicates that the authorization of a fair price shop dealer is liable for suspension or cancellation as the case may be, if such a fair price shop dealer is involved in any criminal case or when any case under Essential Commodities Act, 1955 or any other similar law is pending against him/her. Therefore, it is more than clear that paragraph No.2 (5) of Annexure-I read with Clause 19 of the PDS Control Order enables the appointing authority to take into account the conduct of a fair price shop dealer who is involved in any crime not necessarily connected with the Essential Commodities Act or any order made in accordance with Section 3 thereof. Unfortunately, this particular provision has not been pointedly drawn to the attention of the learned Single Judge who dealt with Banoth Ramesh's case (referred to supra). On the contrary, learned Assistant Government Pleader has made a confessional statement at Bar that there is no provision in the PDS control order to allow the conduct of a dealer's involvement in any other crime to be take note of.
It stands to reason and good sense that if a person is involved in a serious crime, he shall not be permitted or allowed to function as a fair price shop dealer. If a person has been involved in a criminal case and he has been pursuant thereto confined to judicial custody for 18 days, as had happened in this case, the distribution of essential commodities to the card holders gets impaired completely. Further, the authorization of a fair price shop dealer cannot be transferred and one is required to keep the shop open through out the month except on declared holidays and distribute the stock to the card holders. If a person is involved in any crime and is also confined to judicial custody, then, the fair price shop has to be closed. On behalf of the authorized fair price shop dealer, no one can run or manage the shop. Therefore, in public interest also, the authorization of a fair price dealer, who is involved in a criminal case, is liable to be considered for suspension or cancellation as the case may be by the appointing authority.
I therefore do not find any justifiable reason to admit this writ petition or grant the relief prayed for in this writ petition.
But, however, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has already preferred an appeal against the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer suspending the authorization of the petitioner, pointing out as to how he has been implicated in the criminal case by a rival group in the village and it must be left to the appellate authority as to whether the facts and circumstances of the case really warrant suspension of the authorization of the fair price shop dealer at all. It is needless for me to observe that the appellate authority and for that matter, if approached even the appointing authority, is entitled to independently apply its mind as to whether the facts and circumstances of the case do really warrant suspension of the authorization of the writ petitioner and pass appropriate orders on his appeal, uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this case.
With this, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
______________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J Dated: 20-3-2012