IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 17 of 2003 BETWEEN: Smt A. Nallamma, W/o. Nagabhushanam, 12th Ward, Anantapur District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Anantapur. 2 The Joint Collector, Anantapur. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings of the first respondent in D.Dis.K4/ATP/5293/2002 dated 11.12.2002 wherein he confirmed the proceedings of the second respondent in D.Dis.No.K4/2694/99 dated 31.3.2002 and of the third respondent in D.Dis.No.D1/CS/564/99 dated 18.4.1999 as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary ad contrary to law and further declare that the petitioner is entitled to distribute the essential commodities to Ward No.XII of Anantapur Town, Anantapur District and pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.G.KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioner submits that she was appointed as a fair price shop dealer of 12th ward of Ananthapur in the year 1988 and since then she has been distributing the essential commodities to the cardholders without any remarks and she belongs to SC community. While so, the Inspector of Police, VCCSD, Anantapur seized the stock of PDS rice on 15.02.1999 alleged to have been caught hold by the colony people by intercepting one un-numbered van at Ramnagar, Anantapur while transporting the rice to the other place for sale at higher rate. Based on the report of the Inspector of Police, the authorization of the petitioner was suspended pending enquiry and thereafter a show cause notice was issued framing the charge calling upon the petitioner to submit explanation as to why the dealership shall not be cancelled. The petitioner submitted an explanation and after considering the explanation, the dealership was cancelled by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur by order dated 18.04.1999. 2. The charge framed against that petitioner is “that the fair price shop dealer has diverted 10 bags of PDS rice meant for P.D. System and diverted the same stocks into black market for her pecuniary gains”. To the said charge the petitioner submitted an explanation stating that the case was registered against her based on the statement made by one Ramaiah, Hamali of the Van without checking the accounts and verifying the quantity of rice allotted, distributed and the ground balance available in the shop. She further stated that she never diverted 10 bags of rice as alleged in the charge and accordingly pleaded innocence stating that she has not committed any violation. The explanation was considered by the RDO, who came to the conclusion that it was not convincing, and held that the charge is proved and accordingly cancelled the dealership. As against the said order of the RDO the petitioner filed an appeal before the Joint Collector (CS), have granted stay pending disposal of the appeal, ultimately dismissed the appeal by order dated 31.03.2002. The appellate authority has also not considered any of the contentions raised in the appeal and without any justification whatsoever and without their being any records with regard to inspection and verification of the accounts and stock, simply confirmed the order of the RDO. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that, in fact, by the common inspection report in Cr.No.28/VC/ATP/99 dated 15.02.1999, the Inspector of Police, VCCSD, registered cases against one Smt. Fatima Bee, fair price shop dealer of 6th ward; one Sivanna of Nayak Nagar; one Nagabhushanam of Ashoknagar of Anantapur and one Chennaiah of Chiyyodu Village of Rapthadu Mandal. Though the dealership of Fatimabee was cancelled by the proceedings of the RDO dated 18.04.1999, on an appeal by Fatimabee, the Joint Collector elaborately considered her case and came to the conclusion that the RDO, Anantapur has not made any independent enquiry before canceling the authorization based on the FIR and there was no verification of door to door whether the dealer has distributed the rice properly or not. In fact, the Inspector has not at all seized the stocks from the premises of the fair price shop dealer and on the statement given by the third parties only the case was registered and without verifying the records and ground balance and without giving any reasonable opportunity, canceling the authorization of Fatimabee is illegal and accordingly set aside the order of the RDO. It is the case of the petitioner that the Joint Collector who set aside the order of the RDO, canceling the authorization of Fatimabee, by order dated 27.11.1999 in D.Dis.K4/7435/99, the same Joint Collector had taken a different view and simply dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner by impugned order dated 31.03.2002. 4. In the counter filed before this Court also no justifiable reasons have been shown for taking a different view in the case of the petitioner while attracting the deformities and irregularities committed by the RDO, when the Joint Collector set aside the cancellation of authorization of a similarly situated fair price shop dealer namely Fatimabee. An attempt has been made to see that the order dated 27.11.1999 made in favour of Fatimabee was not brought to the notice of the Joint Collector while disposing the case of the petitioner. It is the further case of the petitioner that, in fact, the office of the appellate authority is well aware of the order passed in favour of Fatimabee and it was also brought to the notice of the appellate authority. However, a perusal of the impugned order of the RDO as confirmed by the Joint Collector clearly goes to show that the RDO has passed the order without verifying the records and without making an enquiry but simply cancelled the authorization of the petitioner basing on the criminal case registered against the husband of the petitioner. 5. I am of the opinion that the reasons as stated by the appellate authority in the appeal filed by Fatimabee in D.Dis.K4/7435/99 dated 27.11.1999, the same reasons do apply to the case of the petitioner. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the order of the Joint Collector confirming the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer in canceling the authorization of the petitioner is illegal and unsustainable and accordingly, it is set aside. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J June 10, 2008 DSK