THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition Nos.15873, 15874, 15875, 15876, 15877, 15878, 15879 & 15892 of 2006 and 12509, 12514, 12516, 12519, 12520, 12522, 12573 & 12585 of 2007 COMMON ORDER: The petitioners are dealers of different fair price shops in Bhimavaram Town. They have got valid authorization, up to various dates. Show cause notices were issued to them by the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Narsapur, on 06.10.2004, directing them to explain as to why their authorizations should not be cancelled, on the ground that certain bogus cards were found in the area of operation, and that they were found drawing and distributing essential commodities to unauthorized persons. Explanations were submitted, and no action, however, was taken thereon. Show cause notices, dated 16.05.2005, were issued, framing almost the similar charges. The petitioners submitted explanations. Vide proceedings, dated 10.06.2005, the RDO cancelled the authorizations of the petitioners, holding that the charges framed against them are proved. On the ground that the authorizations were cancelled, on the instructions issued by the Joint Collector, the petitioners approached this Court by filing W.P.Nos.12971 of 2005 and batch. Through a common order, dated 25.08.2005, the writ petitions were allowed, and the matters were remanded to the RDO, for fresh consideration and disposal. After such remand, show cause notices were issued once again, on 09.11.2005, and explanations were submitted. Thereafter, orders were passed on 20.12.2005, cancelling the authorizations. W.P.No.27745 of 2005 and batch challenging the said orders were dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioners to avail the remedy of appeal. The appeals preferred to the Joint Collector, West Godavari, were dismissed, on 25.02.2006. The petitioners filed W.P.No.5452 of 2006 and batch against the orders passed by the Appellate Authority. The writ petitions were allowed, on 20.03.2006, and the matters were remanded to the Joint Collector for fresh consideration and disposal. While the matters were pending before the Joint Collector, after remand, the Mandal Revenue Officer, filed a complaint before the Station House Officer, Bhimavaram, alleging that the petitioners have committed crimes under Sections 408 and 420 I.P.C., and F.I.R.Nos.61 of 2006 and batch, were received on 19.05.2006. Challenging the same, the petitioners filed W.P.No.15873 of 2006 and batch. The Joint Collector dismissed the appeals through orders, dated 24.05.2007. W.P.No.12509 of 2007 and batch is filed challenging the said orders. The petitioners contend that the principal allegation against them is that they are responsible for issuance of bogus ration cards and that they have supplied essential commodities to fictitious persons, on the basis of such cards are untenable. According to them, they have no role whatever in the matter of issuance of ration cards and that in the vigilance enquiry conducted by the department, a clear finding was recorded to the effect that it is only the revenue officials that are squarely responsible for the irregularity. The petitioners further contend that once ration cards are issued by the revenue authorities and allotted to their shops, they have no option, except to supply the essential commodities to the card holders and that it is not part of their duty, to verify the genuinity of the cards. It is urged that the Licensing Authority and the Appellate Authority did not examine the matter from the correct perspective. They have also raised an objection, as to the registration of F.I.Rs., particularly when the proceedings are pending before the various authorities. On behalf of the respondents, detailed counter-affidavits are filed. It is stated that the petitioners were under obligation to ensure that essential commodities are supplied only to genuine card holders, and the very fact, that such large number of cards were discovered in the area, discloses that they too were actively colluding with the concerned persons. It is further pleaded that a detailed vigilance enquiry was conducted and a recommendation was made to the effect that the dealerships of the petitioners herein be cancelled and that they be disqualified from being appointed afresh. Heard Sri Y.Srinivas Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. This is the fourth round of litigation before this Court, in relation to the action initiated against the petitioners. A perusal of the record, and in particular, the orders passed by this Court, from time to time, discloses that serious exception was taken for the indifference on the part of the revenue authorities, be it, in the context of issuing ration cards without verifying the relevant facts or remaining indifferent for years together, thereafter. This Court had to pass a detailed interim order indicating the course of action, at the initial stage itself. That, in turn, resulted in a detailed enquiry. Specific findings were recorded to the effect that the revenue authorities at the mandal level alone are to be blamed for the issuance of bogus cards. The report reveals that the fraud came into light, only when door to door inspection was conducted. There was not even a semblance of allegation against the petitioners suggesting that they are any way responsible for issuance of such cards. The proceedings that are initiated against the petitioners are based mainly upon the allegation, as to the fraudulent issuance of the ration cards. Once it becomes clear that the petitioners have no role to play in the issuance of cards, that allegation cannot constitute the basis for cancellation of their dealership. The other allegations are almost ancillary to the principal one. After remand, the Appellate Authority i.e., the Joint Collector, has undertaken extensive discussion. At more places than one, reference is made to para 34 of the Vigilance Report. There is no such para, and that it appears, that he was referring to the page of the report. Throughout the report, the accusations and findings are squarely against the revenue officials. However, the consequential action was directed against the fair price shop dealers. The fact of the matter is that till today not even a show cause notice was issued to any revenue official, who was found responsible for issuance of bogus cards. It appears that the fair price shop dealers have become soft targets to cover the fraud or indifference on the part of the revenue officials. The petitioners were made to move around before various authorities and this Court repeatedly. Had there been any inkling of allegation to the effect that they have indulged in activities of black marketing or diversion of the essential commodities, things would have been different altogether. Learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies submits that the bogus cards were recovered from the petitioners. Here again, the allegation is not clear and it is as vague as it could be. It appears that the deletion of the ration cards that were found to be bogus from the allotment made to the respective petitioners is treated as surrender. Once such cards are found to be bogus, naturally they must result in deletion of the same from the account of the respective dealers. The petitioners cannot be punished for such a consequential step. One thing, which impresses this Court, is that the petitioners ought to have been vigilant in ensuring that the holder of the card is a person living in the locality and ought to have passed on the information even based on doubt to the concerned authorities. Though it is not part of their duty, it can be treated as their obligation to ensure that the essential commodities are distributed in a proper and correct manner. This Court is of the view that in stead of visiting them with the serious punishment of cancellation of dealership, fine can be imposed on them. The reason is that in many cases persons are appointed as fair price shop dealer, only to enable them to eke out his livelihood. The registration of F.I.R’s against the petitioners, even while the departmental proceedings are pending at various stages, cannot be sustained in law. Hence, they are liable to be quashed. For the foregoing reasons, W.P.Nos.15873 of 2006 and batch are allowed, setting aside the F.I.Rs., registered against the petitioners, in relation to their dealerships of fair price shops. W.P.Nos.12509 of 2007 and batch are partly allowed and the orders of cancellation passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsapur, against the petitioners, are modified to those of imposition of fine of Rs.1,500/-, against each dealer, payable within four weeks from today into the account that may be indicated by the Revenue Divisional Officer henceforth. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.04.03.2010. GJ