HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7125 of 2008 Date: 26.10.2010 Between : D.Shantamma. …….Petitioner And The Sub-Collector, Madanapalle, Chittoor District & others. ….Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7125 of 2008 ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the order, dated 01.08.2003, passed by the 1st respondent Sub-Collector, in Roc.No.A3/2303/2001, as confirmed by the 2nd respondent-Joint Collector by order, dated 29.09.2004, passed in Proceedings Dis.No.S1/843/03, and further confirmed by the 3rd respondent-revisional authority by orders, dated 18.12.2007, passed in Proceedings Dis.(P1)/730/04. The petitioner is the fair price shop dealer of Dasegownivur village of Kuppam Mandal in Chittoor District. On the complaints made against her that she is holding the posts of Sarpanch of the village and Chairman of Watershed, and as such, she is not entitled to continue as a fair price shop dealer, proceedings were initiated by the 1st respondent for cancellation of petitioner’s authorization, by framing the following two charges against her: “1. The dealer is holding some other public offices of Sarpanch, Water Shed Chairman, etc., thereby violated Condition Nos.11 and 13 of the authorization issued under Control Order, 1973”. 2. The dealer failed to renew the authorization beyond 31-3-2002 thereby contravened Clause 43 (5-III) of the Control Order, 1973”. In the 1st charge, there is an allegation that the petitioner is holding the public offices of Sarpanch and Watershed Chairman, and thus, violated the conditions of authorization. To the said charge, petitioner has filed her explanation, stating that she was never elected as Sarpanch of the village and has also not worked as Watershed Chairman at any point of time. The 2nd charge is that the petitioner has failed to renew the authorization beyond 31.03.2002, for which, an explanation is filed, stating that she has already filed application for renewal of authorization. The primary authority i.e. the Sub- Collector, Madanapalle, on the ground that as per the provisions of the A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001, every application for renewal has to be made before the expiry of authorization, and basing on the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer that the requisite fee was remitted by the petitioner on 02.04.2002, has recorded a finding that she did not apply for renewal within the time. A further finding is recorded to the effect that if a fair price shop dealer gets elected to any public office, such dealer incurs disqualification. On the aforesaid ground, the petitioner’s authorization was cancelled. When the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Joint Collector, Chittoor, in the order passed by him on 29.09.2004, issued in Proceedings Dis.No.S1/843/03, it is recorded that the appellant is not the Chairman of Watershed Committee, as alleged, and that her husband is the Chairman. When the matter was further carried by way of revision before the District Collector, the same was rejected on the ground that the petitioner herein has accepted that her husband was elected as Sarpanch of Dasegownivur village, as such, as per the conditions of authorization, she is not eligible to continue as a fair price shop dealer. A perusal of the order passed by the primary authority shows that no finding is recorded in the said order, to the effect that the petitioner is holding any public office, which is a disqualification to continue as fair price shop dealer. So far as the allegation of not filing the application for renewal before the expiry of authorization, it is to be noticed that even as per the A.P.State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001, application for renewal can be filed within a period of one month from the date of expiry of authorization, by paying necessary fee. In this case, it is to be seen that the authorization of petitioner is valid up to 31.03.2002, and the fee was remitted on 02.04.2002. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the application for renewal cannot be considered. When the petitioner has filed appeal before the appellate authority, the said authority has clearly recorded a finding that the petitioner is not the Chairman of Watershed Committee. When the matter was further carried in revision, the revisional authority has confirmed the order of cancellation on the ground that the petitioner has accepted that her husband was elected as Sarpanch of Dasegownivur village. It is to be noticed that such an allegation was not the basis for cancelling the authorization of the petitioner. As there is no definite finding on the allegations made against the petitioner, and as the appellate and revisional authorities have not considered the appeal and revision filed by the petitioner in proper perspective, I deem it is a fit case for reconsideration by the 1st respondent-Sub-Collector, Madanapalle. Accordingly, the order, dated 01.08.2003, passed by the 1st respondent Sub-Collector, in Roc.No.A3/2303/2001, and the order of the appellate authority/2nd respondent-Joint Collector, dated 29.09.2004, passed in Proceedings Dis.No.S1/843/03, and the further revisional order, dated 18.12.2007, passed by the 3rd respondent-revisional authority in Proceedings Dis.(P1)/730/04, are hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the 1st respondent, for fresh consideration. The 1st respondent shall consider the matter as to whether continuance of petitioner as fair price shop dealer is in violation of guidelines and record a definite finding on the allegations levelled against the petitioner and pass appropriate final orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Till such orders are passed, the arrangement existing as on today, shall be continued. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 26th October 2010 ajr