THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.9927 of 2006 Date 17 -01-2008 Between: Chiruvuri Venkatapathi Raju. ..... PETITIONER AND The Commissioner of Civil Supplies and Ex-Officio Secretary to Govt. of A.P., Food and Civil Supplies Department, Somajiguda, Hyderabad and others. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.9927 of 2006 ORDER: This Court issued Rule Nisi on 05-06-2006. Counter affidavit is filed. Sri G.Hemachalam, learned counsel representing the writ petitioner had taken this Court through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is liable to be allowed. Learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies had taken this Court through the contents of the counter affidavit and would maintain that there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Heard both the counsel. This writ petition is filed questioning the cancellation of dealership of the petitioner in respect of fair price shop of Konam village, Cheedikada Mandal, Visakhapatnam and a consequential direction is sought for restoration of the same. It is stated that the fourth respondent, by order dated 07-09-2002, had cancelled the dealership of the petitioner alleging that he had committed certain irregularities in distributing the rice meant for Food for Work Programme and that he had not maintained the accounts properly. However, respondents 2 to 4 without calling for any enquiry report, cancelled the authorization of the petitioner under clause 3(4) of the APSC (RDCS) Order, 1973. Petitioner stated that since the APSC (RDCS) Order, 1973 was not in force on the date of cancellation of the authorization, the said order is illegal. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the third respondent and that the third respondent while dismissing the appeal, by order dated 25-01-2003, observed that 40 quintals of rice meant for Food for Work were diverted. Petitioner contends that he was not given an opportunity of hearing during enquiry. Against the order of the third respondent, petitioner filed a revision to the second respondent and that the second respondent, by order dated 25-01- 2003, mechanically dismissed the revision without proper appreciation of the case. It is stated that since all the stocks in his go-down were seized and confiscated, he preferred an appeal before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. The learned Judge, by order dated 22-12-2004, allowed the appeal setting aside the order of confiscation, except to the extent of 120 kgs. of rice meant for Food for Work Programme. Aggrieved thereby, he filed a review before the second respondent to recall the order of cancellation of authorization of the petitioner’s dealership. By order dated 15-12-2005, the second respondent rejected his review stating that there was no provision of review under the A.P.State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001. In such circumstances, the petitioner filed this writ petition raising several grounds. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the D.S.P. Vigilance enforcement and his staff on information, on 22-07-2007, visited Khandivaram village of Cheedikada Mandal, seized 40 qtls. of rice, which includes the rice meant for Food for Work Programme, from the house of one Sri K.Srinivasa Rao, Khandivaram village in Cheedikada Mandal and in continuation of the enquiry, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Cheedikada made a surprise check with Vigilance authorities on 23-07-2002 and found shortage of 120 Kgs. of rice meant for Food for Work Programme and, therefore, the Mandal Revenue Officer, seized the following stocks under the cover of mediators report and filed a case under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), against the petitioner. 1. 192.88 qtls. of Food for Work Rice. 2. 10.93 qtls. of P.D.S.Rice 3. 102 Kgs. of Sugar 4. 135 lts. of kerosene. It is stated that later the Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam, had passed orders in C.C.No.34/2002/CSR5 dated 12-08-2002, directing the Mandal Revenue Officer, to dispose of the P.D.S. commodities through an authorized fair price shop dealer and to keep the sale proceeds in civil deposits pending finalisation of the case filed under Section 6-A of the Act. The rice of 192.88 qtls. meant for Food for Work Programme was released to the Mandal Revenue Officer for distributing to the labourers under separate distribution register through an authorized fair price shop dealer and that the Mandal Revenue Officer was directed to send the challan towards the sale proceeds of P.D.S. stocks seized from the fair price shop dealer. As per the above orders, the fair price shop dealer of Manchala village was kept in-charge and the seized stock had been distributed through him on cards and the sale proceeds had been remitted to civil deposits and the challan had been submitted to the District Supply Officer for the purpose of record. It is further stated that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam, vide proceedings dated 09-08-2002, suspended the authorization of the petitioner pending further orders and after affording an opportunity of hearing, he cancelled the authorization, vide proceedings dated 07-09-2002, which was confirmed by the Joint Collector, in appeal, on 25-01-2003. The case filed under Section 6-A of the Act before the Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam, was disposed of confiscating 100% value of the stocks seized from the fair price shop dealer to the Government, as all the charges were held proved. The revision petition filed by the petitioner before the Collector, Visakhaptnam, was dismissed on 06-06-2003 confirming the orders of the Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam. It is further stated that the dealer also filed criminal appeal before the District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, whereby the learned Judge, by his order in Crl.A.No.107 of 2002 dated 24-11-2002, dismissed the appeal confirming the order of the lower Court. Respondents denied the averment that the Mandal Revenue Officer had submitted his report illegally against the petitioner and a copy of the said report was not furnished to the petitioner to file a detailed explanation. These are the respective stands taken by the parties. Learned District and Sessions Judge in Crl.A.No.117 of 2002 made the following order: “In the result, the impugned order of the learned Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam is interfered and only the value of 120 kgs. of FFW rice seized from the appellant found to be at variance between the ground balance and book balance should be confiscated to the State and the remaining commodities i.e. 10.92 quintals of PDS rice, 102 kgs. of sugar and 104 litres of Kerosene oil seized from the appellant or value thereof if already confiscated shall be released to the appellant. Ordered accordingly.” It is no doubt true that the proceedings relating to confiscation and the observations made in the criminal appeal referred to supra may stand on a different footing when compared to the cancellation of the authorization proceedings. But, however, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and proper to consider the said aspect also. Since the findings recorded in these proceedings, many a time may overlap, this Court is not inclined to express any further opinion relating to this aspect and in the light of the facts and circumstances, the order made by the second respondent is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted to the second respondent to decide afresh, in accordance with law, especially taking into consideration the order made in Crl.A.No.117 of 2002 by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is hereby allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. _____________ 17-01-2008 usd