IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 15357 of 2005 Between: Polineni Rajya Lakshmi, W/o. Jagan Mohan Rao, R/o. Vetapalam Village, Tsundur Mandal, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1. The Joint Collector & Additional District Magistrate, Guntur District, Guntur. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tenali Revenue Division, Tenali, Guntur District. 3. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Tsundur Mandal Guntur 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 1st respondent in issuing the proceedings in R.C.No.303/2004 S4, Dt.16-06- 2005 and the consequential proceedings of the 2nd respondent in issuing the proceedings in R.C.No.155/2004/K, Dt.26-06-2005 and also the Notice issued by the 3rd respondent in R.C.No.27/2004/A, Dt.02-07-2005 as wholly arbitrary, illegal, unlawful and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and set aside the same and thereby pass all necessary orders in the facts and circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.CH.RAVINDRA BABU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.15357 of 2005 ORDER: The petitioner is authorized Fair Price Shop (FPS) dealer of Vetapalem village, Tsundur Mandal in Guntur District. She was allotted 1,797 quintals of rice under Food For Work (FFW) programme under Sampurna Grameena Rojgar Yojana (SGRY) scheme. By September, 2003, she distributed about 80% of the stock. She could not dispose of about 46 quintals. Allegedly she went on making representations to Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Tsundur, for necessary instructions and allotment of coupons for distribution of rice in FFW programme. On her representation, it appears Revenue Inspector visited petitioner’s godown and found that about 46 quintals of rice is damaged and it cannot be used. A report was sent to Joint Collector, who passed orders on 16.06.2005 ordering recovery of a sum of Rs.64,263/- being the cost of about 46 quintals of damaged stock. Respondents 2 and 3 issued consequential proceedings demanding the payment. Aggrieved by which, present writ petition is filed. Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer ﬁled counter aﬃdavit. It is stated that out of total stock of 1,797 quintals, petitioner distributed 1616.44 quintals during the period from 06.06.2003 to 22.02.2004. When petitioner’s shop was inspected by third respondent on 05.03.2004 and 08.03.2004, there was a stock of about 180 quintals, out of which 45.50 quintals was not ﬁt for consumption as it was damaged. A report was submitted to Joint Collector (ﬁrst respondent herein) on 08.03.2004 seeking instructions. In response thereto, Joint Collector issued impugned proceedings. A reference is also made that when rice of stock meant for FFW programme piled up with FPS dealers, District Collector issued orders in Rc.932/03/P7/SGRY (SC), dated 24.10.2003 for movement of rice from one habitation to another habitation where fresh allotments were made under SGRY programme and/or to convert FFW rice to PDS stock. Learned counsel for petitioner has raised only point that orders passed by Joint Collector are without conducting enquiry and without giving notice to petitioner, and therefore, unsustainable. He also points out that when District Collector passed orders for movement of stocks from one habitation to another habitation or conversion to PDS rice, necessary orders were not passed and therefore, the action to recover the amount is arbitrary. These contentions are refuted by learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. A perusal of counter aﬃdavit would show that the Joint Collector passed orders on 16.06.2005 after receiving report of Mandal Revenue Officer and considering the representation made by petitioner to District Collector. No enquiry was conducted before arriving at a conclusion with regard to alleged negligence or inadvertence on the part of petitioner in not disposing of FFW rice before they got damaged. The orders of Collector, dated 24.10.2003 referred to hereinabove would indicate that there were left over stocks with many dealers necessitating issue of orders for conversion to PDS or movement of rice to other habitations. An enquiry, therefore, is required to be conducted by Joint Collector before passing orders. In view of the above, this Court is of considered opinion that interest of justice would be met if enquiry is conducted by an oﬃcer authorized by Joint Collector into the allegations of negligence against petitioner. Such enquiry shall be conducted after giving notice to petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 20.10.2008 pln