THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.10122 of 2007 Date 17-01-2008 Between: Tella Anjaiah. ..... PETITIONER AND The District Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole & others. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.10122 of 2007 ORDER: This Court ordered notice before admission on 16-05-2007 and granted interim stay for a limited period and the same was extended for a further limited period. This Court issued Rule Nisi on 23-11- 2007. 2. Counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit also had been filed by the first respondent. 3. This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the second respondent dated 12-01- 2006 and consequential proceedings of the first respondent dated 06- 01-2007 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. 4. It is stated that the petitioner belongs to scheduled caste and he was appointed as a permanent fair price shop dealer of Korisapadu village in the year 1985 and since then, he was distributing the essential commodities to the card holders without any complaint. While so, the third respondent suspended his authorization, by proceedings dated 14-09-2004, basing on the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer alleging that he had committed certain irregularities. The third respondent issued show cause notice alleging that he was not distributing the essential commodities properly; that the essential commodities were distributed at higher rates and that the entries were fictitious. The petitioner had submitted his explanation dated 05-10-2004 denying the allegations made against him. The third respondent after conducting inquiry found that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are minor and imposed a fine of Rs.300/- and restored his authorization, vide proceedings dated 25-10-2005. Aggrieved thereby, respondents 5 and 6, being the card holders, preferred an appeal to the second respondent and that the second respondent allowed the appeal, vide proceedings dated 12-01-2006, which according to the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice. 5. The said order dated 12-01-2006 reads as hereunder: “As seen from the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, it was observed that the Mandal Revenue Officer has submitted report to the Revenue Divisional Officer with record of evidence to all the allegations and certain cardholders has also stated that the dealer has not given ration to them properly and charging higher rates than the rates prescribed by the Government. So the contention of the respondents that there are no proof for the allegations is untenable and is rejected. The contention of the appellant is that basing on the same allegations only the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole in his Rc.C.1264/2004 has suspended the 1st respondent’s by coming to the conclusion that there is gravity in the case and contravened certain provisions and so the present order in challenge is devoid of merit. I found there is a substance in the submission of the appellant’s counsel and found the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole is devoid of merits and using different scales is improper application of mind. I have gone through the record and enquiry report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Korisapadu along with statements given by the cardholders. The report of the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Korisapadu dated 17-08-2004, shows selling of Essential Commodities on higher rates and cardholders stated specifically the higher rates, which are being charges by the 1st respondent. I have gone through the statements given by several cardholders and they were not controverted during any proceedings. Hence I am also of the opinion that statements given by the cardholders are genuine and there is substance. At this juncture the counsel for the appellant also argued that the intention of the legislature in introducing the PDS has to be considered. The Government introduced PDS of Essential Commodities for upliftment of the needs of poor people on certain rates by considering their financial capacity i.e. B.P.L. No. Fair Price Shop dealer can be allowed/permitted to sell Essential Commodity on higher rates and fruits of the scheme can be served on cardholders. Viewed in any angle the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole has no merits and is liable to be set aside. I set aside the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole DDis.No.C.1264/04, dated 25-10-205 by allowing this appeal. Hence the appeal is allowed.” 6. Aggrieved by the proceedings dated 12-01-2006 passed by the second respondent, petitioner preferred a revision to the first respondent. Since the first respondent has not been disposing of the stay petition filed along with revision petition, petitioner filed W.P.No.1267 of 2006 and this Court while disposing of the same by order dated 25-01-2006 gratned stay of the proceedings of the second respondent dated 12-01-2006 and directed to consider and dispose of the revision within a period of six weeks from that day. It is stated that the first respondent without appreciating the explanation of the petitioner and the observations made in the order of the third respondent dismissed the revision petition, vide proceedings dated 06-01-2007. The relevant portion of the said orders reads as under: “The main contention and grounds of the revision petitioners are that the appellate authorities failed to see that he distributed commodities to the cardholders as per the rates fixed by the Government and the said charges is very vague without any positive material in support of the same. He also stated that all the registers were submitted to the Mandal Revenue Officer and after verification of all the registers only he will allot the commodities for the next month. Further he contended that selling at higher rates and distributing the commodities in three or four days are not so serious as warranting him. Further he contended that the Joint Collector failed to see that this is not a case of diversion into blackmarket but only minor in nature and all the allegations are not contraventions of control orders. The respondents have also filed written arguments mentioning that the revision petitioner was distributing essential commodities at higher rates i.e. Rs.5.50 per kg. of rice, Rs.10.00 per litre of k.oil and Rs.14.00 per kg. of sugar instead of rates fixed by the Government and that the revision petitioner has made several fictitious entries in the sales register. As seen from the records it was observed that the inspecting officer inspected the fair price shop of the revision petitioner basing on the complaint petition filed by the villagers and found that the dealer is not distributing Essential Commodities properly and charging higher rates than the rates prescribed by the Government. The appellate authority rightly set aside the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole in D.Dis.C.1264/2004, dated 25-10-2005 and I uphold the same. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly.” 7. In the circumstances, the writ petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 8. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, it is stated that the petitioner is a fair price shop dealer and on receipt of the complaint from the cardholders that the petitioner is not distributing essential commodities properly, the Tahsildar, Karisapadu inspected the fair price shop and found the following irregularities: 1. That the dealer is not distributing essential commodities properly. 2. That the dealer is distributing essential commodities at higher rates i.e. Rice @ Rs.5.50 kg. instead of Rs.5.25 per kg. Rs.10.00 per litre kerosene instead of Rs.9.50 per litre and sugar Rs.14.00 per kg. instead of Rs.13.50 per kg. 3. The dealer has made fictitious entries in the books and diverted the stocks to blackmarket and thereby violated the provisions of APSPDS Control, 2001. 9. It is further stated that on the basis of the inspection report submitted by the Tahsildar, Korisapadu, authorization of the petitioner was suspended by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, vide proceedings dated 14-09-2004, and a show cause notice dated 05-11-2004 was issued to the petitioner framing specific charges and calling for explanation. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed an appeal to the Joint Collector and that the Joint Collector while disposing of the appeal directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, to conduct detailed enquiry and to dispose of the case within a period of two weeks, after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is stated that in the meantime, the petitioner had approached this Court and this Court passed orders on 30-10-2004 directing the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole to complete the enquiry initiated against the petitioner. It is stated that on a perusal of the explanation submitted by the petitioner for the charges framed against him, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, vide proceedings dated 25-10-2005, restored the dealership of the petitioner observing that the allegations are minor in nature and imposed a fine of Rs.300/-. It is further stated that as against the order dated 25-10-2005 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer restoring the dealership of the petitioner, respondents 5 and 6 filed an appeal before the Joint Collector, Ongole and after giving opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, the Joint Collector, Ongole, while setting aside the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, by order dated 12-01-2006, observed that the Government introduced PDS for upliftment of the needs of the poor people at subsidized rates and that the charges against the delinquent were proved as the petitioner was supplying the Essential Commodities at higher rates. It is stated that aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred a revision along with a stay petition before the District Collector, Ongole and instead of pursuing the revision, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.1267 of 2006. This Court while disposing of the wit petition grated stay and further directed to dispose of the revision within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order. It is stated that since the first respondent dismissed the revision giving cogent reasons, petitioner cannot contend that the orders of respondents 1 and 2 are illegal 10. Certain submissions were made that when the primary authority had taken a lenient view, the appellate authority and the revisional authority are not expected to disturb such an order. The relevant portion of the order made by the primary authority reads as hereunder: “In the circumstances explained above, as the delinquent dealer committed certain irregularities which are minor in nature, however a lenient view is taken, an amount of Rs.300/- (rupees three hundred only) is imposed towards fine for the lapses committed and hereby restore the dealership authorization of the individual and he is warned to be careful in future. The Mandal Revnue Officer, Korisapadu is directed to allot the ECs after collecting the fine amount from the individual. The disciplinary case against the dealer is disposed of accordingly.” 11. When the appellate authority and the revisional authority are satisfied that the allegations are grave in nature and came to a conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled to be appointed for serious procedural infirmities, this Court is not inclined to interfere with such orders made by both the appellate authority and revisional authority. Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ 17-01- 2008 usd