Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  


This Page To:

K. BHARATH V/S THE COLLECTOR (CIVIL SUPPLIES), CHITTOOR & OTHERS, decided on Thursday, December 30, 2010.
[ In the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Writ Petition No.33507 of 2010. ] 30/12/2010
Advocate(s) : Jalli Kanakaiah. Assistant Government Pleader Civil Supplies.
Judgment Full Text : Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login above.

Non Members, Enter your email address:- and , to request this judgment.

Alternatively, you may send a request by email to info@lawyerservices.in for the Full Text of this Judgment (chargeable).

LawyerServices Facebook Page

#LawyerServices #bestlegalsoftware #legalsoftware #judgment #caselaw


  "2011 (1) ALT 655"  

judgment - This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside the order dated 10.02.2010 of respondent No.3 as confirmed in orders dated 30.04.2010 and 28.09.2010 of respondent Nos.2 and 1 respectively.The petitioner is working as a temporary fair price shop dealer. On the basis of inspection of his shop by the Mandal Revenue Inspector the following five charges were framed against him vide show-cause notice dated 02.01.2010:?Charge-1: That the F.P. Shop dealer is not having any appointment order as F.P. Shop dealer of F.P. Shop No.05 of Chittoor Town and running un-authorizedly and thus contravened clause 22(vii) of the A.P. State PDS Control Order 2008.Charge-2: That the F.P. Shop dealer is a student and the shop is run by his family members and thus contravened clause 22 (vii) of the A.P. State PDS Control Order 2008.Charge-3: That the F.P. Shop dealer that there is a variation of 22 Kgs of rice as per stock on ground and per stock register (i.e. as per stock register 6.22 Qtls and as per ground balance 6.00 Qtls) and thus contravened clause 22(viii) A.P. P.D.S. Control Order 2008.Charge-4: That the F.P. Shop dealer has not written the particulars of stock available in the stock board at the time of inspection and thus contravened clause 22(viii) A.P. P.D.S. Control Order 2008.Charge-5: That the F.P. Shop dealer has not maintained the stock register and sales register properly and thus contravened clause 22(viii) A.P. P.D.S. Control Order 2008.?The petitioner has filed his detailed explanation dated 08.02.2010 denying these charges. By order dated 10.02.2010 respondent No.3 cancelled the petitioner?s authorization which was confirmed in the appeal and revision filed by the petitioner by respondent Nos.2 and 1 respectively.I have heard Sri J. Kanakaiah the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner has given detailed explanation to each of the charges. In reply to charge No.1 he has stated that he was appointed as fair price shop dealer vide respondent No.2?s proceedings No.D.Dis(b)1506/2005 dated 08.06.2005 and that the said charge is totally baseless. In reply to charge No.2 the petitioner explained that he has applied for M.B.A. correspondence course as he had enough time to study apart from looking after the fair price shop and that therefore he cannot be treated as a student. The petitioner also submitted that his parents are also assisting him in distribution of essential commodities which is permissible under the relevant regulations under the control order. With regard to charge No.3 pertaining to variation of 22 kgs of rice between stock register and ground stock he has stated that he has received the total stock of 51.20 quintals at 50 kg per bag from MLS point Chittoor and that during the dispatch of stock the weightment was made without excluding the weight of the gunny bags and that therefore there is every possibility of shortage of 2 kgs of rice in each bag. To charge No.4 pertaining to non-display of stock board the petitioner explained that the stock details were painted on the wall of the fair price shop premises and in support thereof he has enclosed a photograph. As regards charge No.5 he has denied the allegation and pleaded that every month after receipt of stock and distribution of essential commodities to the card holders the stock and sale registers are promptly written day-wise by mentioning the stock balance on the day and that the same was also observed by the inspecting officer at the time of inspection.In his order respondent No.3 purporting to extract the explanation of the petitioner to each of the charges in an abridged fashion observed as under:?....In this context it is submitted that the delinquent dealer is not a permanent dealer and hence the question of restoration of the F.P. shop to the above individual does not arise. Being the temporary dealer he has committed irregularities.The explanation offered by the temporary F.P. Shop dealer is not convincing and hence the dealership is hereby cancelled.?In my opinion the order passed by respondent No.3 suffers from total non-application of mind and the reasons assigned by him are not germane to the charges framed against and explanation offered by the petitioner. The question before respondent No.3 was whether the charges framed against the petitioner had merit and substance and they stand proved or not. For adjudication of these questions the nature of appointment of the petitioner is totally irrelevant. Whether a dealer is permanent or temporary will not make any difference in deciding these questions. Even if the petitioner is a temporary dealer he is entitled to continue till he is removed in accordance with law. If the charges framed against the petitioner are not proved he cannot be displaced on the mere ground that he is a temporary dealer. No part of the petitioner?s explanation offered in respect of the charges has been examined by respondent No.3 except mechanically extracting parts of explanation offered by the petitioner in respect of each of the charges. In conclusion respondent No.3 has made a cryptic observation that the explanation of the petitioner is not convincing. The approach of respondent Nos.1 and 2 is no better either. All these three respondents have grossly failed to show any sort of seriousness in dealing with the case of the petitioner.Even on merits I have no hesitation to hold that the charges against the petitioner are absolutely frivolous in nature. The petitioner has produced evidence in support of his explanation to charge No.1 that he was duly appointed as a temporary dealer by respondent No.3 who is competent to make such an appointment. For charge No.2 he has explained that he is studying M.B.A. through correspondence course. The respondents have not cited any regulation which prevents a dealer from pursuing distance education course. Similarly regarding minor variation of stock of rice to the extent of 22 kgs as against the stock of 6.22 quintals the petitioner has given a very satisfactory explanation which has not been dealt with at all by any of the respondents. Similarly charge Nos. 4 and 5 are too trivial which have already been properly explained by the petitioner.On a careful consideration of the orders passed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 I am of the opinion that they suffer from serious and patent illegality as pointed out hereinabove and accordingly they are quashed. The temporary authorization of the petitioner shall stand restored forthwith and the petitioner shall be continued as temporary fair price shop dealer till the vacancy is filled up on permanent basis.Subject to the above observations and directions the Writ Petition is allowed.As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition W.P.M.P.No.42484 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.