HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.6037 of 2010 Date: October 09, 2014 Between:
Boya Chinna Seshanna.
… Petitioner And
1. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool, Kurnool District &2 others.
… Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.6037 of 2010 O R D E R:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2.
2. The petitioner was appointed as a fair price shop dealer of shop No.8 of Kodumur Village and Mandal, Kurnool District, about 30 years back and there were no allegations against him. In the year 2007 he submitted an application for renewal of his authorization duly enclosing the original authorization, regular appointment order and requisite fee. But the same was misplaced in the office of the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent addressed letter dated 01.05.2007 to the first respondent as if the petitioner lost his original authorization and requested the first respondent to issue fresh authorization in his favour. The first respondent issued a fresh authorization in favour of the petitioner treating him as temporary fair price shop dealer. When the petitioner approached the first respondent and asked him why he was treated as temporary dealer, he was informed that as and when the original authorization is traced out, necessary regularization orders would be issued. However, the petitioner continued to distribute the essential commodities based on the said authorization. But, the first respondent issued the impugned notification dated 22.02.2010 inviting applications in respect of the fair price shop No.8 held by the petitioner though the authorization of the petitioner was neither suspended nor cancelled. Challenging the notification dated 22.02.2010, the present writ petition was filed.
3. No counter-affidavit is filed by the respondents even after four years.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court the letter of the Tahsildar, Kodumur, dated .05.2007 in Rc.B.88/2007 wherein the fact of the petitioner continuing as fair price shop dealer for the last 30 years and losing the authorization was indicated. In view of the same, this Court accepts the fact of the petitioner continuing as a fair price shop dealer for the last 30 years and losing the original authorization.
5. The loss of original authorization cannot disentitle the petitioner the position of his being a permanent fair price shop dealer. The petitioner cannot be treated as a temporary dealer and the said dealership cannot be put to notification inviting applications from the fresh candidates. There are no allegations against the petitioner and the authorization of the petitioner does not appear to have been suspended or cancelled at any point of time.
6. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned notification dated 22.02.2010 issued by the first respondent is set aside and the petitioner’s authorization may be renewed in accordance with the provisions of the Control Order and the Rules made thereunder. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed in consequence. No order as to costs.
A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J Date: October 09, 2014 BSB 0 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.6037 of 2010 Date: October 09, 2014 BSB