HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 13393 OF 2008 DATED 3rd December, 2014.
BETWEEN E.Tirumala Devi ….Petitioner And The District Collector, Ananthapur, Ananthapur District and ors.
…Respondents.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 13393 OF 2008
ORDER:
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Government for Respondents 1 to 4 and learned Counsel for respondent No.5.
The petitioner while working as a Fair Price Shop Dealer of Shop No. 87, Ward No. 82, Housing Board Colony, Ananthapur, Ananthapur District was issued with a show notice on 02.02.2006 calling for explanation for the proposed action for suspension of her authorization. Later on her authorization was suspended. Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Joint Collector, Ananthapur, second respondent herein, who disposed of the same directing the third respondent to complete the enquiry in accordance with law. The third respondent found the charges are not grave in nature and passed an order restoring her authorization by imposing a fine of Rs.500/- and accordingly her authorization was restored by proceedings dated 1.11.2007. During the period of her suspension, the fifth respondent was appointed as a temporary dealer, who preferred an appeal before the second respondent against the order of the third respondent dated 1.11.2007. During the pendency of the said appeal, the second respondent directed the Tahsildar,the fourth respondent herein, to verify the petitioner’s residential address. It appears that the fourth respondent submitted a report to the third respondent on 03.02.2008. The second respondent based on the said report cancelled the authorization of the petitioner by proceedings dated 5.3.2008. The petitioner preferred a revision before the first respondent, who confirmed the same by order dated 17.06.2008.
A perusal of the show cause notice indicates the following irregularities levelled against the petitioner at the time of inspection of the Fair Price shop by the Honourable Minister:
“1. That F.P. shop dealer has not opened the F.P. shop even at 10.00 a.m. which is expected to be opened from 8.00 a.m.. There by she has violated the clause 22(vi) of A.P. S.P.D.S. (Control) Order 2001 and caused inconvenience to the card holders.
2. That the F.P. shop dealer has not displayed the board showing list of (a) BPL and APL. Anthyodays and Annapurna beneficiaries (b) Entitlement of essential commodities (c) scale of issue (d) Retain issue prices (e) Timing opening and closing of F.P. Shop (f) stock of essential commodities received during the month (g) opening and closing stock of ECs (h) the authority for redressal of grievance/lodging complaints with respect to quality and quantity of ECs under the Public Distribution System. Thereby she violated clause 22(v) of A.P.S.P.D.S.(Control Order 2001.
3. On local enquiry, it is ascertained that the F.P. Shop dealer Smt.Thirumala has got married and residing with her husband at Uravakonda who is working as Teacher at Uravakonda. Thus she has violated the instruction of the authorization.
4. That the F.P. Shop dealer is not residing in the town, where the F.P. is located and cause inconvenience to the cardholders and desolated the F.P. shop by entrusting the same to other unauthorizedly. Thereby she has flouted the instructions issued at the time of appointment as per condition 8 of G.O.Ms.No.53, dated 6.10.2003.”
Among the above irregularities, the main irregularity is with regard to the marriage of the petitioner and she being residient in Uravakonda. The first and second respondents obtained a report from the Tahsildar in regard thereto. However, they did not supply a copy of the said report to the petitioner, as a result of which, she was not in a position to defend her case properly.
In the circumstances, the order passed by the first and second respondents dated 17.06.2008 and 5.3.2008 respectively are set aside and the matter is remanded to the second respondent for consideration afresh after providing a copy of the report of the fourth respondent in proceedings in RC. No. 32/08(c), dated 03.02.2008 to the petitioner and affording an opportunity of hearing to her (the petitioner), and thereafter the second respondent shall pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the interim arrangement already made shall be continued till the disposal of the appeal by the second respondent.
The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.
Miscellaneous petitions pending consideration if any in the Writ Petition shall stand closed in consequence. No order as to costs.
JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO DATED 3rd December, 2014. Msnrx