HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.1003 of 2010 DATE: 26.06.2014 Between:
Smt. BSV Nagamani ... Petitioner And The District Collector, Krishna at Machilipatnam & others … Respondents The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.1003 of 2010 ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.
2. The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer of Shop No.5 of Mylavaram Village & Mandal, Krishna District. The said shop was allotted to her under ‘ST’ quota. While so, the 3rd respondent has issued disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner by issuing a show cause notice dated 29.12.2003 by framing the following three charges:
“(i) The Fair price shop dealer has diverted Qt.37-05 of Food for Work Rice during the month of Oct’03 and indulging in clandestine business contravening the conditions of the authorisation under A.P. State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001;
(ii) There is a shortage of 0-13 Qts., of Sugar; 8 liters of Kerosene; and
(iii) The Fair Price shop dealer failed to maintain true and correct accounts.”
3. The petitioner submitted her explanation to the 3rd respondent on 20.01.2004 denying the charges and without appreciation of the said explanation, basing on the report of the MPDO, the Mandal Revenue Officer cancelled her authorisation on 27.10.2004. Challenging the said order of the 3rd respondent, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent and the said appeal was dismissed on 29.04.2005 without assigning any reasons. The revision was also dismissed on 11.07.2005 by the 1st respondent. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed WP No.18148 of 2005 and the same was allowed on 30.10.2006 setting aside the orders of all the authorities and remanding the matter to the 3rd respondent with the following observation.
“In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the order passed by the third respondent dated 27.10.2004 as confirmed by second respondent vide proceedings dated 29.4.2005 and further confirmed by first respondent vide proceedings dated 11.7.2005 are liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. The matter is remitted back to the third respondent for conducting fresh enquiry. The third respondent is directed to furnish a copy of the enquiry report and all the papers as requisitioned by the petitioner and thereafter shall pass appropriate orders as per law. Meanwhile, status quo as on today shall be maintained. No order as to costs.”
4. After remand, the 3rd respondent passed an order on 26.07.2008 stating that he supplied requisite documents to the petitioner and examined one N.Jamalaiah, adjacent fair price shop dealer. He up-held the earlier orders of cancellation passed on 27.10.2004 cancelling the authorisation of the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent, specifically raising the contention that what was recorded in the order of the 3rd respondent is not correct, as no statement was recorded from N.Jamalaiah after remand and no document or report was furnished to the appellant. But unfortunately, the 2nd respondent without adverting to any of the grounds raised by the petitioner in the appeal, dismissed the appeal with the following observations.
“The case was finally heard on 15.11.2008. The learned counsel for the appellant dealer has argued in the same lines as was contended in the petition filed in the appeal.
The records are verified. The important basic charge is that the appellant dealer has misused q.37-05 of food for work rice. The contention of the appellant is that she has distributed the same under P.D.S., A.A.Y., and also under Food For Work. She has not produced any evidence such as issue register in support of her claim that the rice was used under P.D.S. and A.A.Y. More over it is not at all warranted to use Food For Work Rice to P.D.S. by 18.10.2003, as there was still 13 days left to receive rice under P.D.S. and to distribute to cardholders. The dealer has not produced any order as such from Mandal Revenue Officer, Mylavaram if given, directing her to use Food For work Rice to P.D.S. and A.A.Y. So it is totally invented story to cover the misuse of Food For Work Rice. As regards to the contention that she has distributed Q.10-00 under Food For Work and as the coupons issued in the name of another dealer were used she has changed the name of the dealer, it is highly irregular. Even the records show that those coupons were issued to the other dealer on a later date (in January 2004) subsequent to the date (23.10.2003) on which the appellant claims to have issued rice as per those coupons. Thus the appellant dealer has not only misused but also deliberately attempted to produce false evidence. The Sub-Collector, Vijayawada has complied with the order issued by Hon’ble High Court by way of before giving the order. Hence it is not warranted to intervene with the impugned order and the appeal is dismissed.”
5. The petitioner preferred a revision before the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent, though extracted the grounds of revision, dismissed the revision petition by order dated 15.10.2009. It is unfortunate that respondents 1 and 2, who are senior Administrative Officers in the district failed to understand the implications of the orders of this Court in WP No.18148 of 2005 dated 30.10.2006 while disposing of the statutory appeal and revision before them. Though specific grounds were raised by the petitioner in the grounds of appeal as well as in the grounds of revision, those grounds were not adverted in the orders passed by respondents 1 and 2.
6. In the circumstances, this Court is left with no alternative except to set aside the orders of respondents 1 and 2 and remanding the matter to the 2nd respondent to consider the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the orders passed by the 3rd respondent on 26.07.2008. The 2nd respondent shall consider the appeal keeping in view of the grounds of appeal raised by the petitioner and also after affording opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. The interim order dated 27.01.2010 shall continue till the disposal of the appeal by the 2nd respondent. Pending miscellaneous petitions in this writ petition, if any, shall stand closed in consequence. No order as to costs.
A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J
Date: 26.06.2014 BSS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO 2 WRIT PETITION No.1003 of 2010 Date: 26.06.2014 BSS