THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.13388 OF 2002 DATED: 04-04-2008 BETWEEN P. Ch. Papa Rao. …PETITIONER AND The Collector & District Magistrate, Guntur and three others. …RESPONDENTS ORDER: Petitioner questions the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet in Rc.No.1274/2001-B dated 11.12.2001 as confirmed by the Joint Collector, Guntur A.C.D.Dis.No.3/2002 – S7 dated 20.03.2002 and by the District Collector, Guntur in Revision Case No.4 of 2002 – S7 dated 19.06.2002 and to declare the same as illegal and arbitrary. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a Fair Price Shop Dealer of Pasumuru Village, Chilakaluripet Mandal, Guntur District and he has been functioning as a dealer without any complaints whatsoever. While so, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole by proceedings dated 17.10.2001 suspended his fair price shop authorization and thereafter issued a show cause notice dated 01.11.2001 alleging that for the month of August 2001 36.26 Quintals of drought rice was allotted to him and he made entries in the sales Register without actually distributing the rice to cardholders and diverted the drought rice to black market. The petitioner filed his explanation stating that he distributed the drought rice to the cardholders as well as to the non-cardholders, whether having ration card or not, as per the instructions of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Chilakaluripet that the drought rice can be sold to the non-cardholders also; therefore, he sold the rice to the cardholders without entering the same in their cards and that he did not divert the rice into black market. It is stated that without considering the same, the Revenue Divisional Officer, cancelled his authorization and the same was confirmed by the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority. 3. Counter has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating that based on the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer the authorization of the petitioner was initially suspended and thereafter after issuing the show cause notice and after considering the explanation of the petitioner, the dealership was cancelled by the RDO, which was confirmed by the appellate as well as the revisional authority. With regard to the contention that the fair price dealer was instructed that there is no prohibition to distribute the drought rice to the cardholders as well as to the non-cardholders while maintaining sales register, it is admitted that as per the circular instructions of the Government, there is no prohibition to distribute the drought rice to the cardholders as well as to the non- cardholders but it is stated that the sales must be maintained in the sales register. It is further stated that on cross-verification with the cardholders, who were shown in the sales registers of 18 cardholders, whose names have been entered in the sales register have stated before the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar that they have not drawn drought rice from the fair price shop of the petitioner during the month of August 2001. On that report, the authorities came to the conclusion that the entries made in the sales register as if 18 cardholders have been delivered drought rice, are fictitious entries. The authorization was cancelled only on the allegation of diverting stocks of drought rice into black market. It is further stated that when there was news item in Vaartha daily newspaper on 02.10.2001 about non-availability of drought rice to the villagers, the Mandal Revenue Officer inspected the shop and at that time the 18 cardholders stated that the dealer has not distributed drought rice to them and they were not aware that their names were recorded in the distribution register. 4. A perusal of the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 11.12.2001 in canceling the fair price shop authorization of the petitioner goes to show that the only charge framed against the petitioner was that he diverted 36.26 quintals of drought rice to the black market without distributing the same to the cardholders and therefore, it is a violation. The petitioner submitted an explanation to the said charge stating that 36.26 quintals of drought rice was distributed in the month of August 2001 to the cardholders and the same was registered in the sales register. The report said to have been filed by Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar with regard to non-distribution of drought rice to the cardholders is incorrect and there is no truth in it. As per the instructions of the Government, 20 kilos of drought rice can be distributed to the persons in the village other than the cardholders also and therefore, he distributed small quantity of 8.95 quintals of rice to all the persons in the village whether he is a cardholder or not. 5. Admittedly, there is no evidence or material to establish that the petitioner diverted the drought rice into black market. In the show cause notice there is no mention about the so-called 18 cardholders whose names have been entered in the sales register but only in the counter there is a mention about the alleged 18 cardholders. No enquiry has been conducted furnishing the particulars of 18 cardholders, who said to have been stated that drought rice has not been distributed to them. The Revenue Divisional Officer simply cancelled the authorization of the petitioner, without dealing with any of the contentions in the explanation, by stating that the explanation has been examined and it has been established that the drought rice has been diverted into black market. The appellate authority – Joint Collector, confirmed the said order stating that the appeal is devoid of merits without dealing with any of the grounds of appeal so also the revisional authority dismissed the revision holding that during the month of August 2001 the petitioner diverted the drought rice into black market and that the petitioner entered the names of the cardholders in the sales register without actually supplying the rice. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the self same Revenue Divisional Officer in similar facts and circumstances by similar proceedings in Rc.No.1221/2000-B dated 11.12.2001 cancelled the authorization of one G. Siva Nageswara Rao, which was confirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities, against which the writ petition filed in WP.No.12265 of 2002 was allowed by this Court by order dated 07.07.2003 holding that such type of exercise of power where the livelihood of a citizen is involved is illegal and the third respondent in similar cases levied fine of Rs.500/- on the same allegations and closed the cases of similarly situated dealers viz. G. Anantha Lakshmi and Anjamma, but on the same allegations the authorization of the petitioner therein was cancelled, which was held to be illegal and discriminatory. It was further held that the appellate and revisional authorities also simply put a seal of approval without exercising their quasi-judicial power to deal with the contentions. 7. It is further brought to my notice that this Court allowed WP.No.34254 of 1997 by order dated 28.11.2003 filed by one J. Sitaratnam against the Collector & District Magistrate, Guntur and others, on the ground that the enquiry report has not been furnished before passing the order, therefore, there is violation of principles of natural justice. The case of the petitioner herein is similar to that of G. Siva Nageswara Rao, Fair Price Shop Dealer of the same Mandal and when in similar facts and circumstances, the third respondent levied fine alone in case of other dealers, canceling the authorization of the petitioner cannot be treated to be fair and reasonable. However, in the instant case, admittedly the so-called report of the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar has not been furnished and in the show cause notice it is simply stated that drought rice of 36.26 quintals has been diverted into black market without distributing the same to the cardholders. When the petitioner produced the sales register and submitted that he has distributed the drought rice to the cardholders as well as to the non-cardholders, without conducting any enquiry canceling the authorization cannot be said to be fair and reasonable. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the principles of natural justice have not been followed giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, as also there is no prohibition to distribute the drought rice to the non-cardholders as per the instructions. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the writ petition is liable to be allowed setting aside the impugned order. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J April 4, 2008 DSK