IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 14885 of 2008 Between: P.Yesaiah S/o.P.Hanumanna R/o.1-202, T.Somalaguduru village Nandavaram Mandal,Kurnool District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector,Kurnool District,Kurnool 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoni,Kurnool District 3 The Tahasildar,Mandal Revenue office,Nandavaram Mandal Nandavaram, Kurnool District .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not allotting the monthly quota for July 2008 to the petitioner F.P.Shop situated at T.Somalgudur,Nandavaram Mandal, Kurnool District by receiving the Demand Drafts for the stock as illegal, arbitrary, and for consequently direct the respondents to release the monthly quota of essential commodities from July 2008 onwards to the petitioner F.P.Shop by receiving the Demand Drafts in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. M.JANARDHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.14885 OF 2008 ORDER : The petitioner herein was appointed as the fair price shop dealer of T. Somalaguduru Village in the year 1988. His authorization was suspended by the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Adoni, by proceedings dated 22.5.2005 for a period of three months alleging that he had contravened the conditions of authorization. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an Appeal before the Joint Collector, Kurnool, but the same was dismissed by order dated 27.11.2006. Claiming that against the order of the appellate authority though he preferred a Revision Petition along with an application for stay, the Revisional Authority failed to consider, the petitioner ﬁled W.P.No.5139 of 2007. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court at the stage of admission by order dated 15.09.2007 with a direction to the Revisional Authority - District Collector, Kurnool, to dispose of the petitioner’s application for interim relief within a period of fifteen days. The petitioner states that in spite of the order of this Court, the 1st respondent has not passed any order on his Revision, however he was allowed to continue as fair price shop dealer. Accordingly, he was lifting the stocks up to June, 2008. It is alleged that for the month of July, 2008, though he tendered cost of the essential commodities by way of demand draft, the respondents 2 and 3 did not accept the same and refused to release the stocks. In the circumstances, the petitioner got issued a legal notice dated 27.3.2008 calling upon the respondents 2 and 3 to allot the essential commodities pending the Revision Petition before the 1st respondent. Another notice dated 17.6.2008 was also issued to the 1st respondent requesting to dispose of the Revision Petition on his file. Since there was no response, the present writ petition has been ﬁled seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in not allotting the monthly quota for the month of July, 2008 to the petitioner’s fair price shop as arbitrary and illegal and for a consequential direction to the respondents to release the monthly quota from July, 2008 onwards by receiving the demand drafts from the petitioner. A counter-aﬃdavit has been ﬁled by the 1st respondent – District Collector - stating that against the order of the Joint Collector, Kurnool, dated 27.11.2006, the petitioner did not prefer any Revision Petition and no such Revision Petition is pending on his ﬁle. It is also stated that after receiving the order of this Court in W.P.No.5139 of 2007, dated 15.3.2007 a Memo dated 25.3.2007 was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to submit a copy of the Revision Petition said to have been ﬁled by him, along with the acknowledgement, within three days. Though the said memo was served on him on 28.5.2007, he kept quiet for more than an year and ultimately on 18.6.2008 he submitted a copy of the petition for stay said to have been ﬁled before the 1st respondent. Though in the said petition for stay, it was stated that the grounds of the Revision Petition may be read as part and parcel of the aﬃdavit in the petition for stay, no Revision petition was enclosed. Thus, it is clear that the plea of the petitioner that he preferred a Revision on 12.2.2007 is false. It is further stated that since the date of suspension of the petitioner’s authorization he was never allowed to continue as fair price shop dealer and the commodities are being distributed to the cardholders through the in-charge fair price shop dealer of adjacent village. It is also the case of the respondents that the authorisation of the petitioner was valid only up to 31.3.1990 and thereafter it was not renewed and therefore the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. As could be seen from the order dated 22.05.2005, the petitioner’s authorization was suspended for a period of three months. Since the said period expired long back, irrespective of the subsequent order passed by the 2nd respondent on appeal the authorization of the petitioner shall be deemed to be restored on completion of the three months period. Consequently, the question whether the petitioner preferred a Revision Petition before the 1st respondent or not has become redundant. However, the speciﬁc case of the respondents is that the petitioner’s authorization was valid upto 31.3.1990 only. According to the respondents, the petitioner’s authorization has not been renewed thereafter. Though nothing could be placed before this court by the petitioner to contradict the said version of the respondents, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the fact that the petitioner’s authorisation was suspended on 22.5.2005 itself shows that the stand taken by the respondents in the counter- affidavit is not correct. I am not inclined to express any opinion on such a disputed question of fact which is also beyond the scope of the writ petition. At any rate, since the petitioner’s prayer for a direction to the respondents to release the essential commodities invariably depends on the subsistence of the petitioner’s authorization, I deem it appropriate to direct the 3rd respondent herein - Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer - to conduct an enquiry with regard to the said issue and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. In case it is found that the petitioner is holding a valid authorization, the respondents are bound to release the essential commodities to the petitioner. Since as on today no material is available before this Court to show that the petitioner is holding a valid authorization, the Mandamus compelling the respondents to release the essential commodities cannot be issued. However, for the reasons stated above, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 3rd respondent to issue a show-cause notice to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order furnishing the last renewal of his authorization and giving him an opportunity to make his representation against the impugned action of discontinuation of allotment of commodities for distribution to cardholders. Thereupon, it is open to the petitioner to submit his explanation together with supporting material. On receipt of such explanation, the 3rd respondent shall complete the enquiry and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and communicate the same to the petitioner. The entire exercise as ordered above shall be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 29.09.2008 gbs