IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION NO.20363 OF 2007 V.Eshwaraiah ... PETITIONER AND The District Collector, Medak and others. …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION NO.20363 OF 2007 ORDER: This writ petition is filed challenging the order, dated 21.08.2007 passed by respondent No.1 – District Collector, Medak District at Sangareddy, allowing the Revision Petition filed by respondent No.4 herein against the order of the Joint Collector in file No.CSA/26/A/2004, dated 22.08.2005, purportedly under Clause 21 of A.P. State Public Distribution System Control Order 2001,. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner was appointed as a Fair Price Shop dealer in the year 2000 in respect of Kotyal Village, Mulug Mandal, Medak District. On 07.06.2004, it appears that an auto bearing registration No.AP-28- V-2322 was intercepted by the villagers of Kotyal Village, while carrying seven bags containing 3.50 quintals of Public Distribution System Rice, and five bags containing five quintals of other rice by one Battu Raji Reddy S/o Sathi Reddy. The said auto along with the stock was seized. Basing on the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Mulug Mandal, the Joint Collector, Medak, initiated action and ordered confiscation of the stock under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short “the Act”). Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 6-C of the Act in Crl.A. No.112 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Medak District at Sangareddy and the said appeal was allowed by judgment dated 18.05.2005 setting aside the orders of the Joint Collector, Medak, passed under Section 6-A of the Act. Consequently, the stock seized from the shop was returned to the petitioner. 3. Based on the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Mulug, dated 07.06.2004, disciplinary proceedings were also initiated by respondent No.3 viz., Revenue Divisional Officer, Siddipet, for cancellation of the licence. A show cause notice No.B/1101/04, dated 30.06.2004 was issued to the petitioner alleging that during enquiry it was revealed that 3.50 quintals of P.D.S. rice was being diverted through one Battu Raji Reddy S/o Sathi Reddy. On physical verification of the Fair Price Shop, some variations were also found. The petitioner submitted an explanation dated 14.07.2004, denying the said allegation and stating that he had nothing to do with the seized rice from the auto. He further stated that since his mother was sick, he could not enter the stocks distributed in the stock registers. 4. In pursuance of the directions of this Court in W.P.No.18578 of 2004 dated 30.07.2004, notice was issued to the petitioner and Respondent No.3 - Revenue Divisional Officer, Siddipet, thereupon passed orders in proceedings No.B/1101/2004, dated 01.12.2004, canceling the licence. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows: “Through the reference 4th and 5th the R.D.O. Siddipet was directed to complete the enquiry while giving opportunity to the dealer for personal hearing. As per the direction of the Hon’ble Court and Collector (CS) Medak, the dealer has been issued a notice vide reference 6th cited with a direction to attend the enquiry and submit his personal views with recorded evidence. As per the directions the dealer Sri Eshwaraiah has attended the enquiry on 06.11.2004 and submitted his personal view but he has not produced any recorded evidence. The personal version submitted by the dealer Sri Eshwaraiah is not in convincing manner. The charges leveled against the dealer are held proved. In view of the above circumstances Sri E.Eshwaraiah S/o Chandraiah is removed from Fair Price Shop dealership of Kotayal Village while canceling his authorization of fair price shop dealer.” 5. Ex facie the order passed is perfunctory and non-speaking. 6. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an Appeal No.CSA/26/A/2004 before the Collector (CS) Medak at Sangareddy, pleading that he did not divert the rice to the black market; that the rice seized from the auto did not belong to the petitioner’s shop; that the variations showed by the Mandal Revenue Officer were with a malafide intention; and that the proceedings initiated under Section 6-C of the Act ended in his favour in Crl.A.No.112 of 2004 dated 18.05.2005. Respondent No.1 viz., District Collector, Medak, after considering the matter, allowed the appeal setting aside the aforesaid orders of respondent No.3. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows: “Perused the impugned orders and lower court record. On perusal of record, the R.D.O., Siddipet without personal enquiry, basing on the personal hearing of the appellant only has passed the orders canceling the authorization of the appellant. In view of the above, the appeal is hereby allowed setting aside the orders of the R.D.O., Siddiept passed Vide Proc.No.B/1101/2004 dated 01.12.2004. 7. During the pendency of the appeal filed by the petitioner before respondent No.1, respondent No.3, issued a notification No.B/1101/2004, dated 21.12.2004, calling for applications for the appointment of dealer in respect of the same shop, obviously because of the vacancy which had arisen due to the cancellation of the licence of the petitioner. Respondent No.4 herein responded to the said notification and filed his application. As the appeal filed by the petitioner was still pending adjudication and since any appointment of a fresh dealer would prejudice him, the petitioner approached this Court by way of W.P.No.25226 of 2006 and this Court by order dated 31.12.2004, disposed of the writ petition directing respondent No.3- Revenue Divisional Officer, Siddipet, to proceed with the selection process, but not to issue orders to the selected candidates till respondent No.1 - District Collector disposed of the appeal. 8. In the mean while, respondent No.4 herein challenged the order dated 22.08.2005 of the Collector (CS) Medak at Sangareddy, by filing the Revision Petition purportedly under Article 21 of the of A.P. State Public Distribution System Control Order 2001, contending that he was selected as a dealer in pursuance of the aforesaid notification dated 21.12.2004 and that the appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed without any notice to him. He further contended that the petitioner is in the habit of black marketing the essential commodities and was caught red-handedly while transporting rice. 9. The petitioner denied the allegations made by respondent No.4 in the Revision Petition. Respondent No.1 herein allowed the revision petition in the following manner : “I have perused the connected record of the case, grounds put forth by the Revision Petitioner and the respondent No4 in particular. I find that, since it is habitual malpractice, and in two other members of the family also did the same. Hence, the appeal is allowed by order dated 22.08.2005”. 10. A perusal of the said order would show that the same is perfunctory and non-speaking. Aggrieved by the said order, dated 22.08.2005 passed by respondent No.1 – Collector (CS) Medak, this writ petition has been filed. 11. Heard Sri Bollam Lingaiah Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri T.Venkat Raju Goud, learned counsel for respondent No.4. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that respondent No.1 ought not to have entertained the revision petition filed by the respondent No.4 as he was only an applicant seeking grant of licence during the pendency of his appeal and the appeal having rightly been allowed, the revision petition at the instance of respondent No.4 could not have been entertained. He would further contend that there was no material whatsoever to connect the petitioner to the stocks seized from the auto and that the petitioner did not indulge in any black marketing or diverting the stock from the shop. The petitioner was exonerated from the allegations in the appeal under Section 6-C of the Act by a competent criminal Court, and hence, the impugned order is ex facie, unsustainable. 13. On the other hand, Sri Venkat Raju Goud, learned counsel for respondent No.4, reiterated the allegations that the petitioner indulged in black marketing and was caught when the stock was being transported in the auto and that earlier his wife who was the licencee and another family member also indulged in such activities, due to which their licences were also cancelled. He would further contend that the impugned order is valid and deserves to be upheld. 14. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he never indulged in black marketing nor was he concerned with the stock seized from the auto. It is also his specific contention that he did not commit any irregularity in the distribution of essential commodities and the proceedings initiated against him under the Act ended in his favour, would amply establish that he did not indulge any irregularity as alleged against him. In the light of the specific stand taken by the petitioner, the respondents ought to have conducted a detailed enquiry and recorded a finding on the allegations. Neither respondent No.3 – Revenue Divisional Officer, Siddipet, who passed the orders for cancellation of licence, nor respondent No.1 – District Collector, who passed the orders dated 21.08.2007 on the Revision Petition filed by respondent No.4, made any efforts in that regard. 15. The orders as extracted above by the Revenue Divisional Officer and the District Collector, as well are perfunctory. Neither respondent No.1 nor respondent No.3 has disclosed as to on what material they reached the conclusion that the petitioner was habitually resorting to the irregularities. The respondent No.3 cancelled the licence by merely stating that the version submitted by the petitioner is not convincing and the charges leveled against him were held proved. There is absolutely no consideration as to how the alleged charges were proved against the petitioner. Similarly the order is silent as to on what basis respondent No.1 has concluded that the petitioner is a habitual malpractitioner. Assuming that the licences granted to the family members of the petitioner were cancelled, the same cannot be invoked against the petitioner. On the other hand, indisputably the proceedings initiated under Section 6-C of the Act against the petitioner ultimately ended in his favour by virtue of the appeal filed by him under the Act being allowed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Medak. Exoneration of the petitioner by the court is a relevant ground which the 1st respondent should have taken into consideration, instead he passed the impugned order without there being relevant material. The impugned order is therefore, not sustainable. 16. Admittedly, respondent No.4 was only an intervener who sought licence in the place of petitioner by virtue of the notification issued while the appeal of the petitioner was pending. Merely because he was an applicant and allegedly got selected, he cannot be considered as aggrieved if the licence is restored to the petitioner. 17. In the above analysis, the writ petition is allowed and order in Proc.No.CSA/7/Rev.petition/2005 dated 21.08.2007 passed by respondent No.1- District Collector, Medak at Sangareddy is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J OCTOBER 21, 2010. YVL