IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.P.No.25711 OF 2008 Date:15-02-2011 Between:- Md.Jaina Begum .. Petitioner And The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsampet, Warangal District and two others. .. Respondents ORDER:- The fair price shop dealer of Rangapur Village, Khanapur Mandal, Warangal District, the petitioner herein, filed the present case aggrieved by the order dated 26-07-2008 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsampet, Warangal District, cancelling her authorization as a fair price shop dealer, which was confirmed in appeal by the Joint Collector (Civil Supplies), Warangal under order dated 14-11-2008. The ground for cancellation of the petitioner’s authorization was that her husband was promoted as a Village Revenue Officer, thereby rendering her ineligible for being continued as a fair price shop dealer. 2. This Court, by order dated 25-11-2008, suspended the impugned order dated 14-11-2008 confirming the primary authority’s order dated 26-07-2008 pending disposal of the writ petition. The respondents filed W.V.M.P.No.135 of 2009 to vacate the stay order. 3. With the consent of the learned counsel, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal. 4. The petitioner was appointed as the fair price shop dealer for Rangapur Village, Khanapur Mandal, Warangal District in the year 1994. Her husband was appointed as a Sethusindhi (Village Servant) on honorarium and was working as such in Rangapur Village at that time. He was promoted as a Village Revenue Officer in June, 2008. Basing on this fact, the respondent authorities initiated proceedings for cancellation of the petitioner’s authorization on the ground that her continuation as a fair price shop dealer contravened the relevant rules. The order dated 26-07-2008 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsampet, reflects that the said authority was of the view that the petitioner’s continuation as a fair price shop dealer would be in violation of Clause (5) of the A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001. It is on this basis that the primary authority cancelled the petitioner’s authorization. The petitioner’s appeal against the said order met with failure when the Joint Collector, Warangal, by order dated 14-11-2008, confirmed the cancellation of the petitioner’s authorization. Relevant to note, the appellate authority placed reliance on G.O.Ms.No.53, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS.1) Department, dated 06-10-2003. 5. A reading of Clause (5) of the Control Order of 2001 reflects that there is no prohibition contained therein with regard to the appointment or continuance of a fair price shop dealer on the ground that a family member of the said dealer was in Government service. On the other hand, the last proviso to the said Clause reads to the effect that a fair price shop dealer should give an undertaking to the appointing authority that he or she would relinquish the dealership if he or she is elected to any public office. The said Clause therefore has no application to the fact situation on hand. The order of the primary authority basing on this Clause was therefore misconceived. The appellate authority, on the other hand, relied upon G.O.Ms.No.53 dated 06-10-2003. No doubt, under Clause 12(iii) thereof, a prohibition is stipulated to the effect that close relatives of Government employees shall not be appointed as fair price shop dealers. It is however relevant to note that this G.O. is of the year 2003 and is not retrospective in nature. The petitioner was appointed as long back as in the year 1994 and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies is unable to show that there was any such similar prohibition at the point of time the petitioner was appointed. That being so, no norm is available to the respondents to show that the petitioner was not eligible to be appointed or to be continued as a fair price shop dealer owing to the employment of her husband in Government service. At the time she was appointed, there was no such prohibition and the prohibition under G.O.Ms.No.53 dated 06-10- 2003 applies to appointment of fair price shop dealers and not continuance of fair price shop dealers already appointed. Thus, the orders under challenge effecting cancellation of the petitioner’s authorization as the fair price shop dealer of Rangapur Village, Khanapur Mandal, Warangal District are legally unsustainable. 6. The writ petition is accordingly allowed setting aside the order dated 26-07-2008 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsampet, Warangal District, confirmed in appeal by the Joint Collector (Civil Supplies), Warangal, by order dated 14-11-2008. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 15th February, 2011 AMD