THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.22425 OF 2008 DATED JUNE, 2011 BETWEEN Smt.C.Amruthamma …Petitioner And The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District at Lakdikapool, Saifabad, Hyderabad-4 and others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.22425 OF 2008 ORDER: The petitioner’s authorization as the Fair Price Shop Dealer of Pagidyal Village, Gandeed Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, was cancelled by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, under proceedings dated 18.02.2008. The same stood confirmed in appeal and revision under orders dated 24.05.2008 and 21.08.2008 passed by the Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District, and the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, respectively. Hence, this writ petition. By order dated 15.10.2008, this Court directed the respondent authorities not to make any permanent appointment to the subject dealership. Cancellation of the petitioner’s authorization was on the ground that she had committed irregularities in distributing rice to the beneficiaries of the ‘Individual Sanitary Latrine’ (ISL) scheme; that she had failed to maintain the register in respect thereof and had diverted the ISL rice to the black market. The primary authority, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District, found that the petitioner had committed various irregularities and being of the opinion that her explanation was unsatisfactory, cancelled her authorization. This action found affirmation before the appellate and revisionary authorities. It is however pertinent to note that the irregularities alleged against the petitioner did not arise in the course of ‘public distribution’ of essential commodities. These allegations pertained to distribution of rice under a special scheme relating to construction of Individual Sanitary Latrines whereunder the beneficiaries of the scheme were to be allotted rice as an incentive. The disciplinary action taken against the petitioner was however under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 (for brevity, ‘the Order of 2001’). Relevant clauses of the Order of 2001 need mention: An ‘Authorised Fair Price Shop’ as defined under Clause 2(6) of the Order of 2001 means: “a retail dealer appointed or authorized or approved by or on behalf of the State Government and includes a shop set up by the State Government or a State Government Undertaking or a Corporation wholly owned by the State Government or a Co-operative Society for the benefit of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes under a Government Scheme under clause (5) for sale of all or any of the Scheduled Commodities.” ‘Public Distribution System’ under Clause 2(20) of the Order of 2001 means: “the system of distribution of essential commodities to the ration card holders through the fair price shops, such as rice, wheat, sugar, edible oils, kerosene and such other commodities as are notified by the Central Government under clause (a) of Section 2 of the Act.” ‘Issue of authorization to Fair Price Shops’ is dealt with under Clause 5(1) of the Order of 2001 and reads as under: “With a view to controlling and ensuring proper distribution of scheduled commodities owned by the State Government, the appointing authority may issue authorizations to fair price shops owned by the State Government or any State Government Undertaking or any public institution or persons including women or Development of Women and Children in Rural Areas group or registered Women voluntary consumer organizations or thrift groups like Podupu Lakshmi or Co-operative societies which are run exclusively by women (which have only women as members) either wholly or partly, subject to such preferences and reservations as may be prescribed by Government from time to time in this regard to obtain and supply scheduled commodities in accordance with the provisions of this order.” It would be only in the context of the above clauses that disciplinary action can be initiated against the petitioner for irregularities, if any, committed by her in relation to the Order of 2001. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies was asked by this Court to ascertain as to whether the ISL scheme was one relatable to the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1955’) or the Order of 2001 and whether there were any norms prescribed for executing the said scheme and for initiating disciplinary action, if necessary, against those involved in its implementation. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, despite several adjournments, remained unsuccessful in getting instructions in this regard. It is however to be noted that Section 3 of the Act of 1955 empowers the Government, for the purpose of maintaining or increasing supplies of any essential commodity or for securing their equitable distribution and availability at fair prices, to regulate or prohibit its production, supply and distribution by promulgating orders. The subject ISL scheme, on the face of it, is therefore not one flowing from the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Act of 1955. It appears to be a public welfare scheme aimed at improving hygiene in rural areas by encouraging construction of Latrines. The said scheme is thus not one relatable to the Order of 2001. Consequently, the petitioner could not be penalized under the provisions of the Order of 2001 for any irregularities alleged against her in distributing rice to the beneficiaries under the said scheme. The petitioner, having been appointed as a Fair Price Shop Dealer under the Order of 2001, could have been hauled up for any irregularities committed by her in the public distribution of essential commodities under the provisions of the said Order. The additional independent responsibility placed upon her with respect to distribution of rice to the beneficiaries of an unrelated scheme cannot be made the subject matter of disciplinary action under the Order of 2001. The action taken against the petitioner in this regard resulting in the cancellation of her authorization therefore cannot be sustained. That apart, even on merits, it is to be noticed that the Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Gandeed, who was asked to enquire into the matter by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, submitted his report dated 07.04.2005 stating that the Panchayat Secretary of Pagidyal Gram Panchayat was the one who should have maintained the record of distribution of ISL Rice. He further stated that as no ISL rice coupons had been returned, it clearly showed that the same were distributed to the labourers. In spite of this report, the authorities held against the petitioner on the ground that she had failed to maintain the record. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, went to the extent of stating that no person had constructed a Latrine in the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop area as a reason for cancelling the petitioner’s authorization. Needless to state, it would not be the duty of the petitioner, being a Fair Price Shop Dealer under the Order of 2001, to verify the execution of the ISL scheme by physically ascertaining the construction of Latrines. The authorities seized of this responsibility under the scheme would have to be indicted for such failure and the same cannot be thrust upon the petitioner. More so, when her actual role in this regard is not even spelt out in clear terms. Be it viewed from any angle, the cancellation of the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop authorization cannot be sustained. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed setting aside the proceedings dated 18.02.2008 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District, cancelling the petitioner’s authorization as the Fair Price Shop Dealer of Pagidyal Village, Gandeed Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and the orders dated 24.05.2008 and 21.08.2008 passed by the appellate and revisionary authorities confirming the same. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. _________ JUNE, 2011. VGSR