IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 17928 of 2002 BETWEEN: V. Raju S/o. Late Pedda Thimmappa, R/o. Dharoor Village and Mandal Mahaboobnagar District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, Mahaboobnagar Dist. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Gadwal, Mahaboobnagar District. ...RESPONDENTS 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 issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent confirming the orders of the 2nd respondent proceedings No. Case No.CS1/1326/2002 dated 29-7-2002 consequently canceling my authorization by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings No.G/4239/2001 dated 15-4-2002 is null and void and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.CH.RAVINDER Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioner questions the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 15.04.2002 in canceling his fair price shop No.II dealership of Dharoor village and Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District as confirmed by the appellate authority i.e. Joint Collector by order dated 29.07.2002. 2. Petitioner submits that he is the authorized dealer of Fair Price Shop No.II of Dharoor Village and Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District from 1973 onwards and he has been given additional charge of Fair Price Shop of Bureddipally Village of Dharoor Mandal, which is at a distance of less than 3 kilometers from Dharoor. The Government introduced a scheme called “Food for Work” (for short ‘FFW’) under which the labour who works for the Government would be given food instead of money for the work done by them. He further submits that certain works have taken place within the area of the fair price shop No.II of Dharoor Village as well as within the area of the fair price shop of Bureddipally village. While so, the second respondent – Revenue Divisional Officer issued a show cause notice dated 11.01.2002 stating that the Sarpanch and MPTC member of Dharoor submitted a representation alleging that the petitioner has not distributed the rice issued under FFW programme and diverted the same into black market and that the in charge M.S. point has submitted that the petitioner lifted the rice based on which the following charge has been framed: “That the Fair Price Shop Dealer has not produced the records either to the M.R.O or in the R.D.O. office even after giving more than one week time. It seems that the dealer has taken more time to build up the false records to produce in this office. (Thus the F.P. Shop dealer has violated the condition (4 & 5) of APSC (RDCS) Order, 1973.)” Accordingly, the petitioner was directed to submit explanation as to why his authorization should not be cancelled for the aforesaid charge. 3. Petitioner submitted his explanation on 22.01.2002 stating that he has received 75 quintals of rice meant for FFW for distribution in Bureddipally village and 40 quintals of rice meant for FFW for distribution in Dharoor Village and the rice was lifted on 20.10.2001 but because of non-issuance of the coupons by the authority he could not supply rice up to 31.10.2001. The local leaders were pressurizing to distribute the 75 quintals of rice belonging to Bureddipally village at Bureddipally alone but not at Dharoor Village. He further submits that the rice meant for FFW in respect of Bureddipally village was insisted to be distributed at Bureddipally alone but not meant for the main fair price shop at Dharoor; therefore, the rice meant for Bureddipally was distributed at Bureddipally. With regard to the production of records it is stated that after the death of his first wife he got married again and on 06.11.2001 he took his pregnant wife and his brother’s pregnant wife to Gadwal and joined them in the hospital and that as his brother was not available in the village, he was in the hospital from 06.11.2001 to 18.11.2001; therefore, he could not produce the records. It is stated that he has not diverted the rice into black market and that the complaints made by the Sarpanch and MPTC member of Dharoor are incorrect and without any justification. 4. Petitioner submits that pursuant to the said explanation an enquiry has been conducted and an enquiry report has been called from the MRO, Dharoor. The MRO, Dharoor conducted an enquiry and submitted a report No.A/5085/2001 dated 19.11.2001 stating that 150 quintals of rice was sanctioned to Bureddipally village and at first phase 75 quintals of rice was lifted on 31.10.2001 well before the issuance of coupons on 01.11.2001. As the petitioner was the original fair price shop dealer to Dharoor shop No. II and as he was kept in charge of fair price shop Bureddipally, on the representation made by the labourers, engaged in formation of roads, the petitioner shifted 75 quintals of rice from Dharoor to Bureddipally and kept at a convenient place on the advise of a local leader for the convenience of the labourers. As there was some political enmity among the local political leaders of different parties, the complaints have been made alleging that the rice has been misused but the said complaint has been enquired into and found to be incorrect, as the rice was distributed to the labourers on 01.11.2001 in the presence of village Sarpanch, MPTC and other elders; therefore, there was no diversion of rice meant for FFW into black market. It is further stated that the statements of some labourers and village elders have been recorded and the complainant also attended the enquiry and satisfied him that the rice was not misused. The rice lifted in respect of Dharoor fair price shop was also found to be proper. Accordingly, the MRO submitted a report to treat the complaint as bogus. 5. The Revenue Divisional Officer without any reference to the enquiry report of the MRO dated 19.11.2001 cancelled the licence of the petitioner, which was earlier suspended. Against the said order of the RDO, the appellate authority i.e. the Joint Collector, also without considering the enquiry report held that 40 + 75 quintals of rice was delivered to the petitioner and the unloading of rice meant for FFW of both the villages at one point by the petitioner is objectionable and that he could not produce the records at the time of inspection or even in the next few days is a serious irregularity. 6. I have perused both the orders of the licencing authority as well as the appellate authority and the counter, but there is no whisper either in the cancellation order or in the order of the appellate authority or in the counter about the proof or presumption of diverting rice into black market. The enquiry report was also not considered and dealt with. Having got the charge enquired into, I am of the opinion that the licensing authority should have considered the enquiry report and dropped the action but without any justification whatsoever and without taking into account the findings and facts narrated in the enquiry report and without conducting any enquiry, both the authorities coming to the conclusion that the rice meant for FFW was diverted into black market cannot be sustained. I am of the opinion that absolutely there is no material whatsoever to assume and presume that the petitioner diverted the rice meant for FFW into black market. As a matter of fact, though the petitioner was not under the obligation to distribute the rice to Bureddipally, having considered the request of the local leaders and labourers, he distributed the rice at Bureddipally village in the presence of local Sarpanch, MPTC and village elders, which cannot be considered to be a serious irregularity committed by the petitioner. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not see any justification on the part of the respondents in canceling the fair price dealership of the petitioner. The impugned orders are accordingly set aside. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J April 19, 2008 DSK