IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14072 of 2006 Between: Machilipatnam Mandala Chowkadarala Dukanadarula Sankshema Sangam Edepalli, Machilipatnam … Petitioner AND Government of A.P., rep., by its Principal Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Secretariat, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri C. Raghu Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14072 of 2006 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to renew the authorization of the fair price shop dealers of Machilipatnam Mandal, who were appointed prior to 06.04.2002 without insisting on payment of additional deposit amounts under G.O.Ms.No.16, dated 06.04.2002. The members of the petitioner association were appointed as fair price shop dealers under the A.P. Schedule Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System Order) 1973. The said order was repealed and replaced by the A.P. State Public Distribution Control Order, 2001 (for short, ‘the 2001 Order’) as notified in G.O.Ms.No.16 dated 06.04.2002. As per the scale fixed under the repealed control order, the fair price shop dealers made deposits ranging from Rs.1000/- to 2000/- and Rs.2000/- to 4000/- in rural and urban areas respectively. Under the 2001 order, every authorized fair price shop dealer shall deposit a sum of Rs.4,000/- in urban areas and Rs.3000/- in rural areas as refundable trade deposits in the shape of security deposit for due performance of the conditions of the authorization. The only contention raised by the petitioner is that in view of Clause (1) (3) of the 2001 Order, there is no need for the members of the petitioner’s association to pay additional trade deposits as security deposit. In the counter affidavit filed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, respondent No.3, (mentioned as respondent No.2), he, while controverting the claim of the petitioner that its members need not make additional deposit, mentioned that all the Tahsildars except Tahsildar of Machilipatnam have collected the differential amount of trade deposit from the existing fair price shop dealers and thereafter fresh authorizations were issued in terms of the 2001 Order, that the fair price shop dealers of Machilipatnam Urban and Rural Mandal filed representations before the Joint Collector, Krishna for giving them an opportunity to pay the differential amount of trade deposit in instalments, that their representation was considered favourably by the Joint Collector and they were allowed to pay the differential amount of Rs.2000/- in four instalments and that having agreed for this arrangement, each of the fair price shop dealers paid the first instalment of Rs.500/- and got the authorization renewed for the years 2004- 2006. When the fair price shop dealers failed to pay the balance instalment amounts, the Tahsildar, Machilipatnam issued notices and at that stage they filed the present writ petition. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. Clauses (2) and (3) of the 2001 Order, to the extent they are relevant, are reproduced hereunder: “2. Every authorized fair price shop dealer or cooperative society as the case may be, shall deposit with the State Government or the appointing authority or any person authorized in this behalf “a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) in the case of rural areas” as refundable trade deposit in the shape of security deposit for the due performance of the conditions of the authorization and the sum so deposited or any part thereof may, without the authorization and the sum so deposited or any part thereof may, without prejudice to any other penalty, after enquiry, and after giving a reasonable opportunity to the person to whom the authorization is issued, of stating his case and also of being heard, and for reasons to be recorded in writing, be forfeited, by the State Government or the appointing authority for contravention of any of the provisions of this orders or any conditions of the authorization issued the reunder. If as a result of any departmental action the sum deposited or any part thereof is forfeited the authorized fair price shop shall forthwith pay to the Government such amount as may be required to make up the prescribed sum to be deposited as security. Provided that where a dealer of a fair price shop is exempted from payment of the secutiry deposit under the above clause the Government or the appointing authority may, in case of contravention of any of the conditions prescribed in the authorization, after enquiry and for reasons to be recorded in writing besides canceling the said authorization impose penalty of a sum not exceeding the security deposit prescribed for authorized fair price shop in general. 3. Any agreement executed by any authorized fair price shop for being appointed or approved and which was in force immediately before the commencement of this Order shall stand cancelled except as respects any thing done or omitted to be done before such commencement and any sum deposited there under a security shall be deposited with the Government under Sub-clause (2).” From a reading of Clause (2), it is clear that every authorized fair price shop dealer or cooperative society as the case may be shall deposit with the State Government the sum mentioned therein as trade deposit. Clause (3) declared that all the agreements entered prior to the commencement of 2001 Order, are deemed to be cancelled and the only exception to the said clause is in respect of anything done or omitted to be done before such commencement. It further envisages that any sum deposited under the previous agreements as security, shall be deposited with the Government under Clause (2). Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the last limb of Clause (3) clearly contemplated that the security deposit already paid by the existing fair price shop dealers under the repealed order shall be treated as the security for the purpose of Clause (2) and therefore the members of the petitioner association shall not be required to pay any further deposit. Having carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel, I do not find merit in the same. Clause (2) contains an unqualified declaration that every authorized fair price shop dealer shall make deposit of the amounts mentioned therein as refundable trade deposit. The said clause did not make any exception to the existing fair price shop dealers. All that Clause (3) contemplated is that while declaring all agreements entered under the previous regime as cancelled, it saved the deposits already made by the fair price shop dealers, who were granted authorization under the repelled order. By referring to Clause (2) (mentioned as sub-clause (2)) all that the Government evidently intended was that the deposit which was already lying shall be treated as the part of the deposit which every authorized fair price shop dealer shall make as refundable trade deposit under Clause (2). This shall necessarily mean that the amount of deposits already made by the existing fair price shop dealers shall be adjusted towards deposits envisaged under Clause (2). The acceptance of the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner will give rise to a situation where there will be two categories of fair price shop dealers, namely, one category appointed under the previous regime and another category appointed under the 2001 Order. This would certainly not have been the intention of the Government. If the existing fair price shop dealers were intended to be exempted from payment of additional deposit, Clause (2) itself would have made it clear by specifically exempting this category from paying the additional security deposit as trade deposit. That the petitioner association understood Clause (2) in the manner, I have interpreted above, is evident from the fact that they have approached the Joint Collector with a representation seeking permission to deposit the additional amounts in instalments and they have even paid the first instalment of the additional deposit. For the abovementioned reasons, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.17539 of 2006 and WVMP.No.1200 of 2007 are also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 15.04.2008 ES