THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.19822 of 2011 Date: 15.07.2011 Between: K. Prabhakara Rao … Petitioner and The District Collector, Kurnool and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.19822 of 2011 ORDER : Heard Sri Gangisetty Rajeswara Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5, and with their consent the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Fair Price Shop dealer of Kalugotla and Krishnapuram villages, Veldurthy Mandal, Kurnool District in the year 1986 and his authorization was renewed upto 31.3.2006. However, the authorization of the petitioner was cancelled by the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool Division, Kurnool, by proceedings No.Rc.B.874/2004, dated 13.9.2004 alleging that he had committed certain irregularities in the distribution of rice meant for the beneficiaries under the Individual Sanitary Latrines (ISL) Scheme. The petitioner challenged the said order dated 13.9.2004 by filing an appeal before the 2nd respondent-Joint Collector, Kurnool District, who, after considering the matter in detail, by proceedings No.Rc.CS3/410/2004, dated 1.8.2008 remanded the matter to the 3rd respondent with a direction to supply a copy of the panchanama to the petitioner and dispose of the case after giving opportunity of personal hearing and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Status quo was directed to be maintained till the disposal of the case. In pursuance of the said order, the 3rd respondent issued a show cause notice in proceedings No.Rc.B.874/2004, dated 6.1.2009 calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation in respect of the following two charges: “Charge – I: That the F.P. Shop dealer has distributed 10 Kgs less for every 50 qtls of I.S.L. Rice and also demanded Rs.60/- from each beneficiary. Charge – II: During the enquiry by Deputy Tahsildar on 25.7.2004 some of the card holders have stated in one tone that the Ecs. Are being distributed only 2 or 3 days charging excess rate of Rs.10-00 per liter Kerosene oil against prescribed rate i.e., Rs.9.50 and also distributing Kerosene oil in less quantity against the entitlement i.e., 2 liters. Thus he has deprived the right of poor card holders.” 3. The petitioner states that he has already submitted his explanation to the said show cause notice. It is the grievance of the petitioner that even though the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner in the year 2004, the same are not finalized so far. Aggrieved by the said inaction on the part of the respondents in finalizing the enquiry proceedings, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not guilty of any of the charges levelled against him in the show cause. He also contends that the petitioner was entrusted with the distribution of rice to the beneficiaries under the I.S.L. scheme. This obligation was thrust on the petitioner without there being a legal requirement either under the conditions of authorization or under the provisions of any of the Control Orders. Reliance is placed on an unreported judgment of this Court in W.P.No.22425 of 2008, dated 6.6.2011. It is also contended that charge No.2 is baseless and that the petitioner should not have been called upon to submit his explanation to the said charge. Alternatively, it is submitted that since considerable time has elapsed eversince the proceedings have been initiated, there is no justification on the part of the respondents to keep the matter pending for a long time without finalizing the same. 5. I have considered the contentions raised by the petitioner with reference to the material available on record. 6. It is true that initially the authorization of the petitioner to run Fair Price Shop was cancelled by order dated 13.9.2004. But the said order was set aside by the 2nd respondent by order dated 1.8.2008 and the 3rd respondent was directed to dispose of the case after supplying a copy of the panchanama and providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. In pursuance of the same, a show cause was given to the petitioner on 6.1.2009. Even though more than two years have elapsed after issuance of the said show cause notice, the 3rd respondent has not taken further steps in the matter. There is absolutely no justification much less any valid reason in keeping the enquiry pending for such a long time. 7. It is also true that this Court in W.P.No.22425 of 2008, dated 6.6.2011 has held that the disciplinary proceedings would not lie for any irregularity in the distribution of rice to the beneficiaries under the I.S.L. scheme. But, that is not the only charge levelled against the petitioner. As noticed above, the petitioner is also charged with the irregularity in the distribution of kerosene, which is an essential commodity under the Control Order. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to participate in the enquiry and put-forth his case as regards the charges levelled against him. He may also rely on the aforesaid judgment of this Court as regards the first charge. 8. In the circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool Division, Kurnool District to finalise the enquiry proceedings in pursuance of the show cause notice dated 6.1.2009 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI 15.07.2011. NOTE:- Issue C.C. in three days. (B/O) Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.19822 of 2011 15.07.2011 (Msr)