Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: distribution kerosene in Manda Visweswara Rao And Ors. vs D. Venkateswara Rao And Ors. on 21 February, 2002Matching Fragments
2. Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, would contend that the directions issued by the learned single Judge are ex facie illegal and such directions could not have been issued. Learned Counsel would maintain that there is no bar for the respondent-authorities to grant licences to the kerosene hawkers to distribute kerosene to the consumers and on the other hand, G.O. Rt. No. 479, dated 19-4-1983, the Circular dated 1-1-1987 and the Government Memo dated 26-4-1994 themselves clearly indicate that the respondent-authorities are vested with necessary power to grant licences to the kerosene hawkers also. On the other hand, Sri P.R. Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the authorised Fair Price Shop Dealers would contend that the instructions contained in the above G.O, Rt. No. 479, the circular and the Government Memo clearly go to show that the respondent-authorities wanted to discontinue the licensing of kerosene hawkers and distribute kerosene to the card-holders through authorised Fair Price Shop Dealers and in that view of the matter, no exception can be taken to the directions issued by the learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 9203 of 1995 dated 18-3-1996.
"In fact as per the policy decision and in view of declaring the kerosene as scheduled commodity it has to be distributed only through the F.P Shops and the third parties cannot be allowed to supply to the cardholders."
5. Therefore, the first question that arises for decision is whether the law has imposed any bar on the respondent-authorities to grant licences to the kerosene hawkers to distribute kerosene to the consumers/card-holders. According to the writ petitioners, there is such ban and that ban could be deduced from G.O. Rt. No. 479 dated 19-4-1983, the Circular dated 1-1-1987 and the Memo dated 26-4-1994. In the context of this specific plea and argument, it becomes necessary to examine the above instruments to find out whether there is such a bar or not. Before adverting to these administrative instructions issued by the Government from time to time, it needs to be emphasised that under the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1973 ( for short 'the Order'), it is not obligatory that all essential commodities should be distributed only through authorised Fair Price Shops. Clause 2(b) of the Order defines the term 'authorised fair price shop' as follows:
The Collectors/Chief Rationing Officer, Hyderabad may take action to distribute kerosene through F.P. shops wherever necessary in order to ensure that consumers are not required to travel long distances, for a single commodity viz., kerosene. They are also requested to take special attention to ensure that in case where the consumers have to travel long distances supply of kerosene from the F.P shops located nearer to their residence is ensured."
9. The latest policy of the Government in the matter of distribution of kerosene is contained in Government Memo. No. 1584/ CS.II/94 dated 26-4-1994, which reads as follows:
All the Collectors shall ensure that such of the hawkers who are distributing kerosene without any licence as on date are licensed immediately with the conditions stipulated above. The Collector and Chief Rationing Officer, Hyderabad are also informed that there should not be any appointment of new hawkers in future. They are also informed that there should not be any appointment of new kerosene retailers (N.Rs) also in future."
10. Para 3 of the above Government Memo makes it very clear that the hawkers who were existing as on the date of the issuance of the Memo may also be licensed. Thus, it is quite clear that none of these administrative instructions issued by the Government from time to time prohibit grant of licenses to the hawkers. The Circular dated 1-1-1987 also does not impose any bar on the respondent-authorities in granting licences to the hawkers. On the other hand, as pointed out supra, the administrative instructions clearly provide that the hawkers who are existing as on the date of issuance of the Government Memo dated 26-4-1994 may also be licensed. In that view of the matter, the relief sought by the writ petitioners to issue directions to the respondent-authorities to distribute kerosene only through authorised fair price shop dealers and not to grant licences to hawkers to distribute kerosene, cannot be granted. It is well settled that no mandamus will lie to an authority unless it is shown that the authority is bound by a legal obligation to do a thing or refraining from doing a thing and it has breached such obligation. The writ petitioners have utterly failed to trace the obligation of the respondent authorities not to permit the hawkers to distribute kerosene to the card-holders/consumers, with reference to any law or administrative instructions issued by the Government.