HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.24677 of 2014 Date : 15-12-2014 Between:
Gudipudi Aruna .. Petitioner And Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS-1) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others ..
Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Mr. K.C.N. Raghavender Reddy for Mrs. Y. Ratnaprabha Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 : Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies (AP) Counsel for respondent No.5 : Mr. P. Lakshma Reddy The Court made the following :
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare Memo No.1789/CS-1(1)2014-1, dated 11-8-2014 of respondent No.1 whereby it has granted stay of order of respondent No.2 in Revision Case No.1 of 2013-S7 dated 7- 7-2014 as illegal and arbitrary.
I have heard Mr. K.C.N. Raghavender Reddy, learned Counsel representing Mrs. Y. Ratnaprabha, learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies (AP) for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Mr. P. Lakshma Reddy, learned Counsel for respondent No.5.
At the outset it needs to be observed that as the dispute is pending before respondent No.1, this Court refrains from expressing conclusive opinion. However, for the limited purpose of disposal of the Writ Petition, it has become necessary to record prima facie opinion of this Court.
The petitioner, respondent No.5 and others have applied for appointment as fair price shop dealer for Gorantla village, Guntur Mandal, Guntur District. By order dated 9-8- 2012, respondent No.4 has appointed respondent No.5 as the fair price shop dealer. In the appeal filed by the petitioner, respondent No.3 has set-aside the order of respondent No.4 vide his order dated 29-12-2012 with a finding that respondent No.4 has tampered with the answers with respect to two questions given by respondent No.5. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, respondent No.5 filed a Revision Petition. By order dated 7-7-2014, respondent No.2 has dismissed the said Revision Petition. Following the said order, the petitioner was appointed as the fair price shop dealer in place of respondent No.5 on 7-8-2014 by respondent No.4. Questioning the said order dated 7-7-2014 of respondent No.2, respondent No.5 filed a Revision Case before respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 issued the impugned Memo No.1789/CS-1(1), dated 11-8-2014 wherein while purporting to admit the Revision Case (the word ‘allowed’ is used, evidently to mean that the Revision Case is admitted) it has stayed the order of respondent No.2 till disposal of the case. This order has been questioned in this Writ Petition.
A perusal of the orders passed by respondent Nos.3 and 2 in the appeal and the revision petition, respectively, shows that both have concurrently opined that the then Revenue Divisional Officer, namely, P. Venkata Ramana, who succeeded to Dilhi Rao, who assigned the marks originally, tampered with the answers in respect of the question Nos.4 and 48 by converting ‘x’ marks into ‘tick’ marks. They have further found that as a result of this tampering, respondent No.5 who originally secured 62 marks is shown to have secured 64 marks as against 63 marks secured by the petitioner. The petitioner has secured the original marks sheet under the Right to Information Act, 2005, a copy of which is filed along with the Writ Petition, which shows that respondent No.5 has secured 62 marks only as against 63 marks secured by the petitioner. This fact itself corroborates with the finding of respondent Nos.2 and 3 that the successor Revenue Divisional Officer has tampered with the answer sheet of respondent No.5 by adding two more marks. In view of this material, I am of the opinion that respondent No.1 was not justified in granting interim stay of the orders of respondent Nos.2 and 3.
Accordingly, the order passed by respondent No.1 is set-aside, with the direction to continue the petitioner as the fair price shop dealer till the Revision Petition is disposed of by respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 is directed to carefully consider the findings of respondent Nos.2 and 3 with reference to the material and take an objective decision. In the event respondent No.1 upholds the findings of respondent Nos.2 and 3, it shall consider initiation of disciplinary proceedings against P.Venkata Ramana, the Revenue Divisional Officer who allegedly tampered with the answer sheet of respondent No.5, resulting in addition of two marks to respondent No.5.
The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed.
As a sequel to the disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.30901 of 2014 and WVMP Nos. 3332 and 3426 of 2014 are disposed of as infructuous.
Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 15-12-2014 AM