IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.24199 of 2005 Between: P. Venkatesulu S/o P. Appanna R/o N. Timmapuram, Village, Guntakal (M) Anantapur District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Anantapur, Anantapur District 2 The Joint Collector, Anantapur, Anantapur District 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur Anantapur District 4 Sri N. Kristappa S/o R/o N. Timmapuram Village, Guntukal Mandal, Anantapur 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 a Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings of the 1st respondent vide in D. Dis. No. K4/ATP/706/05 dated 23-08-2005 in remanding back to the 3rd respondent herein for fresh disposal after set-a side the proceedings of the 2nd and 3rd respondents on fake and tale grounds in an Revision ﬁled by the villager of N. Timmapuram Village Guntakal Mandal, Anantapur district is illegal arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and in violation of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the above said proceedings as illegal and direct the respondents herein to restore the petitioner fair price shop dealer authorization and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V.L.SURENDRA 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.24199 of 2005 ORDER: The petitioner is a Fair Price Shop (FPS) dealer of Timmapuram Village of Guntakal Mandal in Anantapur District. On the basis of Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer’s (MRO) report, the third respondent issued a show cause notice framing three charges that the dealer is distributing 10 Kgs of rice less out of 250 Kgs rice granted under ISL Scheme, that he is selling kerosene and sugar at higher rates, and that he did not display the board containing prices and stock. The petitioner submitted explanation. On considering the explanation, the third respondent passed orders on 24.01.2005 cancelling the authorization. The appeal ﬁled by the petitioner before the second respondent was allowed on 23.05.2005. By impugned order dated 23.08.2005, the ﬁrst respondent set aside the order of Joint Collector and remanded the matter to the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer (RDO) for fresh disposal observing that a detailed enquiry needs to be taken up in the Village with reference to the records and detailed ground verification. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that when the appellate authority considered the material and found that the charges framed against the petitioner were not proved, ﬁrst respondent erroneously set aside the order. After taking this Court through the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice, learned Counsel would submit that even as per the cardholders of the Village, the petitioner had been distributing commodities regularly with correct measurements and there were no allegations against the petitioner. These contentions are opposed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. The undisputed facts are these. After receiving a petition from the cardholders the MRO, Guntakal, submitted a report dated 09.07.2004, informing that the petitioner committed irregularities in distribution of essential commodities. The same was the basis for framing charges, issuing show cause notice and placing the petitioner under suspension by the RDO. The petitioner then preferred an appeal before the Joint Collector, who rejected the request to grant stay of suspension order. The petitioner ﬁled W.P.No.21280 of 2004. By an order dated 24.11.2004 this Court set aside the order of suspension and gave liberty to the second respondent to initiate enquiry for cancellation of dealership. In furtherance thereof an enquiry was conducted and RDO passed orders canceling the authorization. The petitioner’s appeal was allowed. One N.Kristappa, and ten others, of Timmapuram Village ﬁled a revision before the District Collector. In her order impugned in the writ petition, the District Collector made the following observations. The report of Mandal Revenue Inspector/Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Guntakal clearly indicates that though the F.P.Shop dealer of N.Thimmapuram Village is not maintaining the sales register relating to his F.P.Shop, though he is distributing the essential commodities the cardholders properly by acknowledging the coupons from them. In fact, it is the primary and bounden duty of a F.P.Shop dealer to maintain books of accounts relating to the transactions of purchase, sale or storage for sale as per the condition 6 of the F.P.Shop authorization under clause (5) and clause (22) of A.P.P.D.S.Control Order, 2001. In this case, it is an admitted fact that, the F.P.Shop dealer (Caveator/respondent herein) has failed to maintain the required records and accounts. Further, as seen from the representations ﬁled by one section of cardholders through the counsel for the revision petitioner, they raised various allegations against the F.P.Shop dealer with regard to distribution of essential commodities to the cardholders. On the other side, another section of cardholders in the village who have ﬁled representations through the counsel for the respondent No.1 (F.P.Shop dealer of N.Thimmapuram Village) have unitedly contended that the dealer is distributing the essential commodities properly without any lapses. Thus, there are allegations and counter allegations against the F.P.Shop dealer. Obviously, there appears to be some dispute with regard to the distribution of essential commodities by the dealer. A submission is made that the allegation of non- maintenance of registers was not part of show cause notice or charges and District Collector was carried away by such allegation. The submission, however, cannot be considered. A reading of the extracted portion would show that the District Collector noticing the fact that there are serious allegations and counter allegations against the petitioner came to the conclusion that detailed enquiry is required to know the controversy. As a Head of the District, Incharge of various departments, including Civil Supplies Department, it was always open to the revisional authority to order a de novo enquiry by the RDO. In so doing, the District Collector cannot be said to have committed any irregularity, or impugned order is vitiated by an error. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed observing that the third respondent may dispose of the matter within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after giving notice to the petitioner, fourth respondent and other villagers and after considering the record. No costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 21.10.2008 vs To 1 The District Collector, Anantapur, Anantapur District 2 The Joint Collector, Anantapur, Anantapur District 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur Anantapur District 4 2CCs to G.P. for civil supplies, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. 5 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRT}