THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA Writ Petition No.20934 of 2007 Date: 29th January, 2008 Between :- Addanki Kanchi Varada Raju .. Petitioner And The District Collector, Krishna, Machilipatnam and 4 others .. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA Writ Petition No.20934 of 2007 ORDER:- This Court ordered notice before admission on 4-10- 2007 and granted interim stay for a limited period and the same is being extended from time to time. 2. Heard Sri Kowturu Vinaya Kumar, the learned Counsel representing the Writ Petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies representing R.1, R.2 and R.3, Sri Veera Reddy, the learned Counsel representing R.4 and Mr.Singam Srinivasa Rao, the learned Counsel representing R.5. 3. Sri Kowturu Vinaya Kumar, the learned Counsel representing the Writ Petitioner had taken this Court through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and also the respective counter affidavits and would maintain that in a way the concerned Officer is prejudiced and if the matter is permitted to be decided by the concerned Officer, the petitioner will be serious prejudiced. 4. The learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies had taken this Court through the contents of the counter affidavits and would maintain that absolutely there are no bonafides on the part of the writ petitioner and the writ petitioner at a belated stage approached this Court, in fact, after the Orders had been reserved, and if such requests are permitted, the quasi judicial authorities cannot carry on the smooth function at all. 5. Sri Veera Reddy, the learned Counsel representing R.4 had taken this Court through the contents of the counter affidavit and would maintain that inasmuch as absolutely there is no truth in the allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, the same is liable to be dismissed. The learned Counsel also would submit that no supporting material as such had been placed before this Court; at least the affidavit of the Advocate had not been filed. In such circumstances, the relief prayed for in the Writ Petition cannot be permitted. 6. Mr. Singam Srinivasa Rao, the learned Counsel representing R.5 had taken this Court through the contents of the counter affidavit and would submit that the Officer is only discharging his duties in accordance with law and the Counsel also specifically denied the specific averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition in this regard. 7. The Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to withdraw the appeal (Rc.B1/SRA/4/2007) which is pending on the file of 2nd respondent filed by the 4th respondent against the appointment of petitioner as Fair Price Shop Dealer of shop No.18 Pallepalem (v), Kruthivennu (M) of Krishna District and transfer the same to any competent authority or take up the appeal on his file and pass such other suitable orders. 8. Mr. S.Suresh Kumar, Joint Collector, Krishna at Machilipatnam was impleaded as 5th respondent by an Order dt.29-11-2007 made by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.32850/2007. The said Officer also filed counter affidavit apart from the counter affidavits filed by R.1 to R.3 and also R.4 as well. 9. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that the petitioner is the Fair Price Shop Dealer of shop No.18 Pallepalem (v), Kruthivennu (M) of Krishna District. It is also stated that the petitioner had been appointed as Fair Price Shop Dealer on 3-1-2007 and authorization was issued to him on 17-1-2007 to conduct the said fair price shop under clause 5 of A.P.Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001. Further it is stated that aggrieved by the appointment of the petitioner as Fair Price Shop Dealer, t3rd respondent had filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent which is pending for adjudication and also stated that even though there was no stay, as the authorities did not release essential commodities to the petitioner despite issue of authorization, the petitioner was compelled to file W.P.No.2938/2007 before this Court. Further it is averred that on 23-2-2007 on the basis of instructions from the authorities, the learned Government Pleader has reported that stocks have been released to the petitioner shop and that on the basis of the said statement, the said Writ Petition was disposed of as infructuous. Further it is stated that contrary to the said statement given before this Court, the authorities have released quota in favour of incharge dealer and as such the petitioner filed Contempt Case No.209/2007 and this Court issued notices and ordered for appearance of the respondent No.s 2, 3 and Tahasildar of Kruthivennu Mandal. It is also stated that after receipt of appearance notices, the 2nd respondent had ordered for release of essential commodities to the petitioner by his order dt.30-4-2007. Further it is stated that respondents No.2 and 3 have appeared before this Court, and their appearance was dispensed with and that the Contempt Case is posted for hearing and accordingly the contempt case is pending for adjudication. It is also averred that in the meanwhile the 4th respondent had filed W.P.No.11444/2007 questioning the order of 2nd respondent dt.30-4-2007 and the said Writ Petition was disposed of on 24-7-2007 directing the 2nd respondent to dispose of the appeal. Further it is stated that the 2nd respondent fixed the date of hearing initially as 11-10- 2007 at 11.00 a.m., and sent notices dt.22-9-2007 to the petitioner and his Advocate and thereafter another notice dt.26-9-2007 served on the petitioner advancing the case and posted the appeal on 1-10-2007 at 11.00 a.m. It is also stated that the petitioner along with his Counsel had appeared before the 2nd respondent for hearing on 1-10- 2007 and that unfortunately, the 2nd is prejudicial against him since he had filed Contempt Case against him and that this Court ordered for his appearance. Further it is also averred by the petitioner that instead of hearing the matter on merits, the 2nd respondent unfortunately openly stated in the Enquiry Hall that his appointment will be set aside and a case for criminal conspiracy will be filed against him and also further had stated that by filing Contempt Case, he is trying to succeed in the appeal. It is also further stated that though the 2nd respondent has openly stated these facts, the petitioner maintained silence to maintain decorum of the Court and that it is unfortunate that the 2nd respondent is acting in prejudicial manner and bent upon to set aside his appointment order which is not justifiable. Further it is stated that the petitioner had sent representation to the 1st respondent on 2-10-2007 through ANL Service with a request to withdraw the said appeal from the 2nd respondent and entrust the same to a competent authority. It is also stated that the 2nd respondent may take decision in the appeal at any time, in which event the petitioner will be put to great hardship and also stated that in view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case, as a last resort, the petitioner is approaching this Court for transfer of the said appeal from the 2nd respondent to any other competent authority for proper and fair adjudication. 10. The main ground on which the transfer is being prayed for is on the strength of the averments made in para 4 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. 11. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of R.1 to R.3 is sworn to by the self-same Suresh Kumar – R.2 – the Joint Collector, Krishna, Machilipatnam, and the said Suresh Kumar who was impleaded as a party and shown as R.5 also had filed counter affidavit. 12. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of R.1 to R.3, it is stated that consequent on the resignation of the original Fair Price Shop Dealer of Pallepalem, H/o.Lakshmipuram village of Kruthivennu Mandal, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Bandar issued notification inviting applications from the eligible B.C.Community people to fill-up the vacancy of Fair Price Shop Dealer, Pallepalem, H/o.Lakshmipuram village of Kruthivennu Mandal vide Rc.K.3177/2004 dated 14-6-2004 and that in response to the same notification, six candidates have applied for the dealership of Fair Price Shop Dealer and that Sri Addanki Kanchi Varada Raju, S/o.Peddi Raju, Pallepalem village,kruthivennu Mandal was selected and appointed as Fair Price Shop Dealer Pallepalem village, Kruthivennu Mandal vide proceedings Rc.C.1138/2006, dt.3-1-2007 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Bandal. It is also stated that aggrieved by these orders, Smt.Edarapalli Krishna Veni, W/o.Nageswara Rao, Pallepalem village, Kruthivennu Mandal, one of the applicants filed an appeal before the Joint Collector, Krishna, who is the appellate authority for Fair Price Shop Dealers and requested to set aside the orders of appointment made by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Bandar. It is further averred that the Appeal petition was taken on file and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Bandar and Sri Addanki Kanchi Varada Raju, newly appointed Fair Price Shop Dealer, Pallepalem, H/o.Lakshmipuram village, Kruthivennu Mandal were requested to offer their remarks on the appeal petition filed by Smt.Edaravalli Krishnaveni, W/o.Nageswara Rao. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Bandar has offered his remarks on the appeal petition stating that the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Kruthivennu submitted a report stating that Smt.Edarapalli Krishna Veni – appellant was residing in Bhimavaram village and Mandal, West Godavari District and not residing in Pallepalem, H/o.Lakshmipuram village, Kruthivennu Mandal and taking into consideration that Smt.Edarapalli Krishna Veni was residing in Bhimavaram village and Mandal, West Godavari District and that Sri Addanki Kanchi Varada Raju, resident of Pallepalem, H/o.Lakshmipuram village, Kruthivennu Mandal who is the next eligible candidate was appointed as Fair Price Shop Dealer Pallepalem, H/o.Lakshmipuram village, Kruthivennu Mandal. It is further stated that the Revenue Divisional Officer further reported that the present Mandal Revenue Officer, Kruthivennu submitted a report stating that the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Kruthivennu has issued Caste and Nativity Certificates vide 1176/2004, dt.29-7-2004 along with the remarks of Panchayat Secretary dated 13-10-2006 to Smt.Edrapalli Krishna Veni and also issued Election Identity Card LQM 1661446, dt.27-4-2003 and she was also having White Ration Card bearing No.WAP 065001800015 along with the family members of Pallepalem, H/o.Lakshmipuram and her name was registered vide S.No.104 of Voter List of 2007 and that the Sarpanch, Vice-Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Pallepalem, H/o.Lakshmipuram village, Kruthivennu Mandal and M.P.T.C. Ward Member have confirmed that the earlier report of the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Kruthivennu stating that the appellant Smt.Edarapalli Krishna Veni residing in Bhimavaram (v) and Mandal of West Godavari District is false and he recommended to appoint Smt.Edarapalli Krishna Veni W/o.Nageswara Rao as Fair Price Shop Dealer, Pallepalem. It is further averred that notices were issued to the appellant and respondents and the case was posted for hearing on 27- 2-2007 and 6-3-2007 and the Advocate for the respondent (writ petitioner) asked time to file counter and that the Advocate for the appellant - Smt.Edarapalli Krishna Veni requested for interim orders and interim orders were issued in Rc.B1.SRA.4/2007 dt.6-3-2007 duly granting stay on the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Bandar vide proceedings Rc.C.1138/2006, dt.3-1- 2007 pending finalization of Appeal Petition and directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Bandar not to fill-up the vacancy of fair price shop Pallepalem of Kruthivennu Mandal until finalization of the appeal petition and he was also directed to make alternative arrangements by keeping adjacent Fair Price Shop Dealer as additional charge to avoid inconvenience to the card holders. The said case was further posted for hearing on 4-4-2007 and that both the parties were called on 4-4-2007 and that the Advocate for the writ petitioner has filed counter stating that material averments mentioned in the Appeal petition are neither true nor correct and it is liable for dismissal. It is further stated that the Residence Certificate of the appellant stating that she is residing in Bhimavaram filed by the respondent No.1 was referred to the Tahsildar, Bhimavaram for report and the Tahsildar, Bhimavaram in his letter Rc.C.321/2007, dt.9-5-2007 has reported that a Residence Certificate was issued to Smt.Edarapalli Krishna Veni W/o.Nageswara Rao on 7-3-2007 on the basis of remarks offered by the Village Revenue Office, Gunupudi on 5-3-2007 through E-Seva kendram of Bhimavaram on 7-3-2007 and also he further stated that the matter has been got enquired through Revenue Inspector – I, Bhimavaram and his enquiry reveals that Smt.Edarapalli Krishna Veni is not a resident of Bhimavaram village and Mandal of West Godavari District and that somebody came to him on 5-3-2007 and filed an application with a request to issue Residence Certificate to Smt.Edarapalli Krishna Veni W/o.Nageswara Rao stating that the applicant is temporarily residing in D.No.15-23-2 Palurivari Street, Gunupudi village since last 6 years and that a Residential Certificate is required to open a Bank Account and he had certified the residence of the applicant in a routine manner with a view not to trouble them and that the Revenue Inspector, Bhimavaram had issued the Residence Certificate on the instigation of some others who obtained the Residence Certificate with a malafide intention and he further reported that Smt.Edarapalli Krishna Veni is not resident of Bhimavaram and some others with a malafide intention might have obtained the said Residence Certificate in favour of Smt.Edarapalli Krishna Veni. Further it is stated that in the mean time, the respondent had filed a Writ Petition before this Court and this Court in W.P.No.2938/2007 dt.23-2-2007 and the High Court has passed orders observing that the Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, High Court of Andhra Pradesh had represented that the stocks have been released in favour of Sri Addanki Kanchi Varada Raju, Fair Price Shop Dealer, Pallepalem and the singular grievance is that despite the petitioner’s appointment as Fair Price Shop Dealer, the essential commodities are not being supplied to him and that in view of the statement of G.P. for Civil Supplies, on basis of instructions from the respondents, no further proceedings are warranted and that the grievance of the petitioner is not survived and the Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed as infructuous. It is also stated that these facts were not brought to the notice of the appellate authority by the parties. It is further stated that subsequently Sri Addanki Kanchi Varada Raju hadfiled a Contempt Application before this Court with a request to direct the respondents to release the essential commodities to the petitioner pending disposal of the contempt case in the interest of justice. In view of the contempt petition before this Court, the entire matter was re-examined and the interim stay orders issued in B1.SRA.4/2007, dt.6-3-2007 was kept in abeyance till the disposal of the Writ Petition filed by Sri Addanki Kanchi Varada Raju. On recleipt of final orders from this Court, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Bandar and the Tahasildar, Krithivennu were directed to release the essential commodities to him pending final orders of the appeal petition, by order dt.30-4-2007. It is also stated that in the mean time, the appellant Smt.Edarapalli Krishna Veni had approached this Court and filed a Writ Petition W.P.No.11444/2007 and obtained orders with a direction to the 3rd respondent – Joint Collector to dispose of the main appeal itself pending on his filed as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of four weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, following due process of law and till such time, the 4th respondent – Sri Addanki Kanchi Varada Raju shall be allowed to distribute the commodities to the card holders in terms of the appointment order dt.3-1-2007. It is also stated that the Orders were received by the Joint Collector, Krishna on 27-9-2007 and that the case was posted for hearing on 20-9-2007 and finally on 1-10-2007 and that both the parties were called on 1-10-2007 and they were present along with their Advocates. Smt. Edarapalli Krishnaveni – appellant through her Advocate has filed further explanation stating that she was married Sri Nageswara Rao on 27-1-2001 and since then she and her husband have been residing at Pallepalem, H/o.Lakshmipuram village of Kruthivennu Mandal and filed photo copies of various documents like Identity Card issued by the Election Commission of India on 27-4-2003, Household Card bearing No. WAP 065001800015, Caste Certificate and Income Certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kruthivennu to prove her bona fide residence in Pallepalem, H/o.Lakshmipuram village of Kruthivennu Mandal. It is also averred that Sri Addanki Kanchi Varada Raju, newly appointed dealer – writ petitioner has stated that he has produced certificate from the Mandal Revenue Officer, Bhimavaram to prove that the appellant was residing in Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. On examining him about the genuineness of the Residence Certificate, he admitted that without the knowledge of the appellant, he has obtained a Residence Certificate in the name of the appellant through his friend in Bhimavaram to establish that the appellant is not a relsident of Pallepalem village of Kruthivennu Mandal. Further it is also stated that the Advocate for the respondent No.1 has stated that there is no objection to dispose of the appeal petition pending before the appellate authority as per the direction of this Court in its order in W.P.No.11444/2007 dt.24-8-2007. It is further stated that the respondent again approached this Court and this Court passed interim orders in W.P.M.P.No.27142/2007 in W.P.No.20934/2007 dt.4-10- 2007 as follows:- “All further proceedings in the appeal No.Rc.B1/SRA4/2007 filed by the 4th respondent viz., Smt.Edarapalli Krishna Veni, R/o. D.No.15- 23-2, 15th Ward, Palurivari Street, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, which is pending on the file of 2nd Addressee viz., the Joint Collector, Krishna at Machilipatnam against the appointment as Fair Price Shop Dealer be and hereby stayed for a period of 3 weeks. Order follows.” Further it is stated that the writ petitioner might have presumed that he is likely to lose his case based on the evidence and his Fair Price Shop Dealership is likely to be cancelled as it was established that the residence certificate obtained from the Tahsildar, Bhimavaram in favour of Smt.Edarapalli Krishnaveni by some others instead of herself was created to make her ineligible and ensure that he became the dealer. Further it is stated that the writ petitioner stated in his affidavit filed before this Court that the appellate authority and Joint Collector has interpreted his filing Contempt Petition as trying to succeed in the appeal, by pressurizing the Appellate Authority. Further it is stated that the contention of the petitioner that the appellate authority is acting in prejudicial manner and bent upon to set aside his appointment order, is nothing but the assumption of the petitioner. It is stated that the appellate authority has reserved the appeal petition for orders based on the material record after giving opportunity for personal hearing to the petitioner as per the orders in W.P.No.11444/2007 dt.24-8-2007. Further it is also stated that as all the proceedings in the appeal case in the Court of appellate authority and Joint Collector is over and the matter is reserved for orders and that the petitioner is trying to prolong the case by filing cases one after the other. Further it is stated that in W.P.No.11444/2007 this Court directed to dispose of the case in four weeks and in W.P.M.P.No.27142/2007 in W.P.No.20934/2007 dt.4-10-2007 interim stay for a period of three weeks was granted which was extended by three more weeks. It is also further stated that as per clause 4 of the A.P.State Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2001, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Bandar is the Appointing Authority and also stated that as per clause 20(1)(i) of the above Order, the Joint Collector, Krishna is the appellate authority and as per the clause 21(i) of the above Order, the District Collector is the Revisional Authority. Further it is averred that this Court in W.P.No.11444/2007 dt.24-8-2007 directed the Joint Collector to dispose of the main appeal as expeditiously as possible within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and it was received by the Joint Collector on 27-9-2007 and accordingly the appeal petition was posted for hearing on 1-10-2007 and both the parties were present and heard the arguments and the appeal is reserved for orders and in the meantime, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition and this Court granted stay of all further proceedings in the appeal pending before the appellate authority i.e., Joint Collector, Krishna. Further it is also averred that in case if the petitioner is not satlisfied with the order of the appellate authority, he has the freedom to file a revision petition before the District Collector, Krishna, who is the Revisional Authority as per clause 21(i) of the A.P.State P.D.S. (Control) Order 2001, after the disposal of the appeal filed by Smt.Edarapalli Krishnaveni. It is further averred that the Joint Collector is the appellate authority for Fair Price Shop Dealers as per clause 21(1)(i) of the A.P.State P.D.S. (Control) Order 2001 and the District Collector is the revisional authority as per clause 21(1). It is also stated that there is opportunity to the writ petitioner herein to file revision petition against the orders if any passed by the appellate authority against him as per clause 21(i) of the A.P.State P.D.S. (Control) Order 2001 and the Joint Collector, Krishna has to act according the procedure prescribed as per law in vogue but not otherwise. It is also stated that the present Writ Petition is liable for dismissal keeping in view of the report of the Tahasildar, Bhimavaram in letter Rc.No.321/2007 (C), dt.9-5-2007 clearly informing that Smt.Edarapalli Krishna Veni is not a resident of Bhimavaram and also as the writ petitioner has misrepresented the facts before the Appointing Authority and got the appointment as Fair Price Shop Dealer and also stated that in fact, the writ petitioner also misrepresented the facts before this Court. Further it is averred that the various allegations made by the petitioner against the respondents are all untenable and are based on no material and this respondent is only discharging his functions as authorised by law and this respondent has never made remarks or any statements against the petitioner as alleged and they are only imaginary. It is also stated that the respondent being an appellate authority, is only dealing the matter before him in accordance with law and the matter will be decided only basing on the records and merits and that the petitioner cannot resort to make wild allegation against the authorities and if the same is permitted, the authorities cannot function and effectively discharge their duties. 13. In the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent, several of the averments had been denied. It is averred in reply to paras 2 to 4 of the writ affidavit that the Fair Price Shop Dealership of Pallepalem village became vacant consequent to the resignation of the previous dealer and that the 3rd respondent issued notification dated 14-6- 2004 notifying applications from the eligible B.C. Candidates for whom the vacancy is meant and that this respondent and five others including the petitioner have submitted their applications. It is also stated that in the interview conducted on 22-8-2006, three candidates did not appear as they were not having the requisite qualification and only 3 have attended the interview. Further it is stated that one Revu Venkateshwar Rao secured highest marks of 38, this respondent secured 2nd highest marks of 34 and the petitioner secured the lease marks offer 33. Further it is stated that initially the said Venkateswar Rao was selected as Fair Price Shop Dealer, but in the verification of his antecedents, the Mandal Revenue Officer found that he is not a resident of Pallipalem village and consequently his selection was cancelled. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent instructed the Tahasildar, Kruthivennu Mandal to submit report of this respondent and surprisingly, the Tahasildar,Kruthivennu Mandal through L.Dis.D.244/2006 dt.30-10-2006 seems to have submitted report as if this respondent also a non- resident of Pallipalem village and that she is residing at Bhimavaram. The said report was totally false and incorrect. The respondent also stated that without providing any