Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. We have prefaced the disposal of this appeal by making reference to various judicial pronouncements on the subject because after hearing learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the records including order dated 2.11.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 23547 of 2005, which is under appeal, we are convinced that order dated 12.12.2004 passed by Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali cancelling authorisation of the fair price shop dealership of the appellant, order dated 16.8.2005 passed by Joint Collector, Nellore and order dated 3.10.2005 passed by District Collector, Nellore dismissing the appeal and revision filed by the appellant against the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, are vitiated due to violation of the rules of natural justice inasmuch as neither of these orders fulfill the requirement of a 'speaking order' and that the learned Single Judge committed a serious legal error by upholding the orders impugned in the writ petition without adverting to the core issue raised by the petitioner.

7. The appellant was appointed as fair price shop dealer at Chowtaputtedu Village in 1991. On 27.6.2004, a news item was published in Eenadu suggesting commission of irregularities by the appellant. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Dagadarthi instructed Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar to inspect fair price shop run by the appellant. The officer concerned reported that the appellant had diverted the S.G.R.Y. rice in black market for personal gain and had acted in violation of the provisions contained in Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2001 Order'). On receipt of the inspection report, Joint Collector, Nellore initiated action under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The appellant filed reply to the show-cause notice and denied the allegation of having diverted SGRY rice or P.D.S. rice to black market. After considering his explanation, Joint Collector, Nellore, passed order dated 19-3-2005 whereby he held that the charge of variation in S.G.R.Y. stocks and accounts is not proved. He, however, imposed penalty of fine of Rs. 1,000/- on the premise that the appellant had failed to maintain the F.P. shop accounts. The relevant extracts of that order are reproduced below:

11. After considering the reply of the appellant, Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali passed order dated 12-12-2004, the operative part of which reads as under:
In reference No. 3 read above the Joint Collector, Nellore has directed to issue final orders by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali to dispose the matter.
The explanation offered by the dealer Sri. A. Srinivasulu is not convinced. Hence, I do order that the authorization of the dealer is hereby cancelled.
12. The appeal filed by the appellant against the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer was dismissed by Joint Collector, Nellore vide his order dated 16.8.2005, the relevant portion of which is reproduced below:
19. Before concluding, we deem it necessary to observe that the allegation of variation in the stock and accounts had not been found proved by Joint Collector, Nellore in the proceedings initiated by him under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. It is difficult to comprehend as to how a contrary finding could be recorded by the same officer while disposing of the appeal filed by the appellant against the order of cancellation of authorization.
20. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal is allowed. Order dated 2.11.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 23547 of 2005 is set aside and orders dated 12.12.2004, 16.8.2005 and 3.10.2005 of Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali, Joint Collector, Nellore and District Collector, Nellore are quashed. This would necessarily mean restoration of the authorization of the appellant as fair price shop dealer. Costs made easy.