IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 18307 of 2006 Between: Md.Khaleelullah, S/o. Mohd. Khasim, Dealer-II, Ramaddula Village, PangalMandal, Mahaboobnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Collector (CS) Mahaboobnagar District. 2 The Joint Collector, Mahaboobnagar. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Wanaparthy. 4 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Pangal mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in not allowing the petitioner to open the Fair Price Shop No.2 of Ramadulla Village, Pangal Mandal Mahaboobnagar, despite payment of the fine amount imposed by the 2nd respondent in his order dt. 12.8.2005 in Case no. CSI (a)/204/2006 as illegal, arbitrary, and consequently direct the 3rd respondent herein to permit him to open the shop and to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: None Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No: 18307 of 2006 ORDER:- In this writ petition, the petitioner questioned that part of order dated 12.08.2006 passed by respondent No.2, whereby he imposed a fine of Rs.3,000/- on the petitioner. On the allegation that the petitioner, who is the fair price shop dealer of shop No.2 of Remaddulla Village, Pangal Mandal, has diverted the commodities into black market, proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 were initiated. On the basis of the report submitted by respondent No.4, respondent No.2 gave the following finding in Para 2 of his order: “2. A show cause notice with two charges was served on the respondent, who filed his comprehensive reply. Seen the material on record placed before me. In his subsequent report dated 31.03.2006, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Pangal stated that the dealer did not lift the balance rice of 56-95 quintals, from MLS Point. Thus, the Mandal Revenue Officer, erred in arriving to the conclusion that 151-05 quintals of rice was diverted to black-market.” However, in paragraph 3, respondent No.2 imposed a fine of Rs.3,000/- with a warning to the petitioner to be careful in future, which reads as under: “3. In the circumstances of the case, I find that the ends of justice would meet, if the respondent is imposed a fine of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only). I order accordingly with a warning to the dealer to be careful in future.” A reading of the above two reproduced paras shows that respondent No.2 has passed a self-contradictory order. Having found that the second report of the Mandal Revenue Officer showed that the petitioner did not lift the balance rice of 56-95 quintals from MLS point and found fault with the Mandal Revenue Officer in arriving at the conclusion that 115.05 quintals of rice was diverted to black market, respondent No.2 ought to have closed the proceedings by exonerating the petitioner. Instead, he imposed a fine of Rs.3,000/-, which on his own findings is not warranted. Therefore, that part of paragraph 3 of the order impugned in this writ petition is set aside. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.22998 of 2006 and WVMP.No.1929 of 2006 are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J. 9th June, 2009 lmv/es THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No: 18307 of 2006 9th June, 2009 lmv/es