THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO. 5 5 OF 2009 J U D G M E N T : (Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) The writ appeal is filed against the order dated 27-11-2008 passed in WP.No. 17194 of 2007 by a learned single Judge of this Court, whereby the learned Judge observed that clause 12 (ii) of G.O.Ms.No. 53, dated 06-10-2003 squarely applies to the case of the appellant and the issuance of show cause notice dated 29-9-2006 and thereupon passing of the order, dated 24-10-2006 by the disciplinary authority canceling the authorization of the appellant, as confirmed by the appellate and the revisional authority by orders dated 28-12-2006 and 02-7-2007 respectively cannot be said to be arbitrary and illegal. The learned Judge also observed in the order that if at all the appellant intends to resign the post of President of PACs Dhoolapally village, he shall submit his resignation to the authority concerned and on submission of such resignation, the respondents may consider the case of the appellant in continuing him as a Fair Price Shop dealer of Dhoolapally village, Qutubuilapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy district. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is a Fair Price Shop dealer of Dhoolapally village, Quthbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy district and he has been running the fair price shop for the last two years without any complaint from the cardholders. While that being so, he contested for the post of President of Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society (PACs) Dhoolapally village of Quthbullapur Mandal and was elected as President of the said PACs. Thereupon, he was issued a show cause notice dated 29-9-2006 calling upon his explanation as to why action should not be initiated against him for violating the provisions as contained in GO.Ms.No.53, dated 06-10-2003, for which the appellant submitted his explanation, but, however, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy district, the third respondent, issued proceedings, dated 24-10-2006, canceling the authorization of the appellant as a fair price shop dealer of Dhoolapally village. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed an appeal to the Joint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy district, the second respondent, and the same was dismissed on 28-12-2006, confirming the orders of the third respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer. Challenging the said appeal, the appellant filed Revision before the District Collector, Hyderabad, the first respondent and the same was dismissed, confirming the order of the second respondent. Challenging the same, the appellant filed WP.No.17194 of 2007 before this Court seeking mandamus to declare the order dated 02-7- 2007 in Revision Case No. A7/384/2007 passed by the District Collector-first respondent whereby confirming the order dated 28-12- 2006 in Appeal Case No.A7/404/2006 passed by the Joint Collector- second respondent, who in turn confirmed the order passed by the third respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 24-10- 2006 in Proceedings No.C/3648/2006 whereby canceling the authorization of the appellant to run Fair Price Shop at Dhoolapally village, Quthbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy district, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. In the writ petition filed by the appellant the respondents have taken a stand that Clause 12 (ii) of GO.Ms.No.53, dated 06-10-2003 enshrines that every fair price shop dealer should give an undertaking to the appointing authority that he/she will relinquish the dealership, if he/she is elected to any public office and moreover the said GO is retrospective in operation and applicable to the case of the appellant, as he is continuing as fair price shop dealer under the provisions of A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001. 4. After hearing both sides and in view of the stand taken by the respondents, the learned single Judge dismissed the above writ petition confirming the order dated 02-7-2007 in Revision Case No. A7/384/2007 passed by the District Collector-first respondent whereby confirming the order dated 28-12-2006 in Appeal Case No.A7/404/2006 passed by the Joint Collector-second respondent, who in turn confirmed the order passed by the third respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 24-10-2006 in Proceedings No.C/3648/2006 whereby cancelling the authorization of the appellant to run Fair Price Shop at Dhoolapally village, Quthbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy district, on the ground of contravening the provisions contained in GO.Ms.No.53, dated 06-10-2003. 5. Questioning the order dated 27-11-2008 in WP.No.17194 of 2007 passed by a learned single Judge, the present writ appeal is filed. 6. Sri A. Prabhakar Rao, the learned counsel for the appellant firstly contended that the bar contained in GO.Ms.No.53, Consumer Affairs of Food and Civil Supplies (CS-I) Department, dated 06-10- 2003 has no application to the case of the appellant, as he was appointed much prior to the issuance of the said G.O. Secondly, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the said G.O. has no retrospective operation and it is only applicable in prospective and the bar contained therein has to be taken into consideration at the time of appointment of fair price shop dealer. Thirdly, the learned counsel contended that except the allegation that the appellant while working as a fair price shop dealer was elected as a Chairman of PACs, Dhoolapalli village, Quthbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy, there is no allegation as to distribution of essential commodities to the card holders and also maintenance of records. 7. Per Contra, the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies contended that the appellant has contravened clause 12 (ii) of GO.Ms.No.53, Consumer Affairs of Food and Civil Supplies (CS-I) Department, dated 06-10-2003 and the said clause contained in G.O.Ms.No.53, dated 06-10-2003 has retrospective effect in the case of the appellant and the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the said G.O. has no retrospective operation and it is only applicable in prospective and the bar contained therein has to be taken into consideration at the time of appointment of fair price shop dealer cannot be considered when there is a clear violation of clause 12 (ii) of the said G.O. and the learned Government Pleader desired to dismiss the writ appeal inlimini. 8. Heard both sides and perused the order impugned in this writ appeal and also the orders passed by the respondents. 9. We have carefully examined the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Govt.Pleader for Civil Supplies. On perusal of the records, it appears that the appellant while working as fair price shop dealer of Dhoolapalli village of Quthbullapur Revenue Mandal in Ranga Reddy district was elected as a President of PACS Dhoolapalli village and he is holding the said post from the date of his being elected. In view of his dual role, a show cause notice was issued to him directing him to explain the reasons as to why his dealership should not be cancelled forthwith on the ground of contravening clause 12 (ii) of G.O.Ms.No.53, dated 06-10-2003. On careful consideration of the matter, issuance of show cause notice dated 29-9-2006, and, thereupon, passing of the order, dated 24-10-2006 by the disciplinary authority cancelling the authorization of the appellant, as confirmed by the appellate and the revisional authority by orders dated 28-12-2006 and 02-7-2007 are perfectly justified and the same does not call for any indulgence of this Court. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Government Pleader, we are of the view that the findings of the learned single Judge is sustainable and not liable to be interfered with in the face of the admitted fact of contravention of clause 12 (ii) of G.O.Ms.No. 53, dated 06-10-2003. However, the order, dated 24-10-2006, canceling the appellant’s authorization shall not be given effect to for a period of four weeks from today. It is left open to the appellant if at all intends to resign the post of President of PACs Dhoolapalli village, he shall submit his resignation to the concerned authority and on submission of such resignation, the respondents may consider the case of the appellant in continuing him as a fair price shop dealer of Dhoolapalli village, Quthbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy district, failing which, the order dated 24-10-2006 passed by the disciplinary authority cancelling the authorization of the appellant, as confirmed by the appellate and the revisional authority by orders dated 28-12-2006 and 02-7-2007 respectively shall come into effect. 11. For the above mentioned reason, we find no merit in the writ appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________________ JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI . ____________________________ JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY. 29/1/2009. I s L