IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 16129 of 2006 Between: Mrs.Kona Eswaramma FP shop Dealer (under suspension) Boddavalasa village, Denkada Mandal Vizianagaram District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, & Addl.Dist.Magistrate, Vizianagaram 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Denkada, Vizianagaram District 3 Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram .....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 to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of 1st respondent i.e. the Joint Collector/Addl.District Magistrate, Vizianagaram, in imposing penalty while allowing the appeal as illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to law, and consequently set-aside the imposition of fine in FPSAP.No.11/2004/G8 dated 5.1.2006 and consequenlty stay the operation of imposition of fine in FPSAP No.11/2004/G8 dated 5.1.2006 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MRS.SHANTHI NEELAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 16129 of 2006 ORAL ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for respondents. The petitioner – a Fair Price Shop dealer of Boddavalasa village, Denkada Mandal under orders of suspension of authorization, challenges the appellate order of the 1st respondent dated 05-01-2006. On allegations that the petitioner committed certain irregularities in the running of the Fair Price Shop as per a report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Denkada, the Revenue Divisional Officer, 3rd respondent by an order dated 25-10-2004 suspended pending enquiry the authorization of the petitioner and made alternative arrangements for distribution of the essential commodities. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the 1st respondent. The substantive grievance of the petitioner presented in the appeal to the 1st respondent is that the 3rd respondent without any enquiry at the village as to the commission of irregularities by the petitioner had erroneously passed the order of suspension; that the SGRY rice supplied by the Government was properly supplied to all the wage earners and he maintained the records properly; and that due to political rivalry certain persons inimical towards the petitioner had made false statements to the Mandal Revenue Officer, who, without any inquiry submitted an ipse dixit report to the 3rd respondent that the petitioner had diverted 34.89 qunitals of rice on to the black market. The 1st respondent in the order impugned dated 05-01- 2006 holds that as is apparent from the record of the case, the Mandal Revenue Officer had not conducted any enquiry in the village. He further holds that in the context of the village being a factious village, the Mandal Revenue Officer was required to conduct an open enquiry and obtain statements from all the wage earners; and the 1st respondent has also found fault with the 3rd respondent in not considering the issue in its entirety. Thereafter the 1st respondent departs from every warranted discipline of quasi judicial proceedings and regresses into speculation. The 1st respondent holds that since the Mandal Revenue Officer had not conducted any enquiry and there were no records justifying the conclusion of the petitioner’s guilt and since there are factions in the village imposing punishment against the petitioner violates the ‘natural justice’. The 1st respondent then drops in the phrase ‘benefit of doubt’ from thin air and holds that the petitioner is entitled to the ‘benefit of doubt’. In conclusion, the 1st respondent allows the appeal, invalidates the R.D.O’s order dated 25-10-2004 (suspending the authorization of the petitioner) and directs the third respondent to impose a suitable penalty on the petitioner as per clause 17 ( c)of the AP State PDS Control Orders, 2001 (for short ‘the Control Orders’) and at three times the difference between the market rate and PDS rate of the commodity and restore her authorization after the petitioner remits the fine amount. This Court has extracted though in summary the reasoning recorded by the first respondent which illustrates the irredeemable fallacy, misconception and terminal irrelevance of the appellate order of the first respondent. The order is perverse and invites invalidation. It is accordingly quashed. Since the first respondent though invested with solemn functions of appellate jurisdiction under the Control Orders has nevertheless chosen to act with utter non-application of mind and has exhibited a casual approach to the adjudicatory functions, this Court considers it appropriate to allow this writ petition with costs quantified at Rs.2,500-00 (Rupees Two thousand five hundred only) of which Rs.1000-00 (Rupees One thousand only) shall be paid to the petitioner and Rs.1,500-00 (Rupees One thousand five hundred only) to the Secretary, A.P. State Legal Services Authority within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed with costs quantified as above. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 04-07-2008 Pvks/* Nb:- A copy of this order be marked to the Secretary, A.P. State Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad for information. B/0 pvks/*