The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.22288 of 2014 Dated 11.11.2014 Between:
K.Balaswamy And The Revenue Divisional Officer, Eluru, West Godavari District and 5 others.
…Petitioner …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.P.Nagendra Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5: AGP for Civil Supplies (AP) Counsel for respondent No.6:
Mr.K.Chidambaram The Court made the following:
Order:
This Writ Petition is filed by a card holder of fair price shop No.14 of Jalapavarigudem H/o.Ankalampadu Village, Kamavarapukota Mandal, West Godavari District, feeling aggrieved by the proceeding in Roc.No.2222/2012/C, dated 15-07-2014, whereby respondent No.1 has temporarily restored the fair price shop authorization of respondent No.6 for a period of three months pending verification of the previous record and finalisation of the case against him.
Respondent No.6 is the authorised dealer of the aforesaid fair price shop. The Collector (CS), West Godavari District, Eluru, has directed the District Supply Officer to inspect the fair price shop of respondent No.6. On such inspection along with the Special Deputy Tahsildar (CSCP), Kamavarapukota, and Food Inspector, Eluru, on 19- 08-2004, it was found that there was a huge variation of 103.44 quintals of SGRY rice. Following the same, respondent No.1 has suspended the authorization of respondent No.6, pending enquiry. The appeal filed by respondent No.6 against the said order was remanded to respondent No.1 for enquiry and passing a final order. After remand, respondent No.1 has issued the proceeding in Roc.No.1215/2004/C, dated 22.11.2010, wherein he has held that respondent No.6 has failed to account for 103.44 quintals of SGRY rice and remit the value thereof. Accordingly, he has imposed a penalty of Rs.4,26,643-50 ps., and forfeited the entire credit deposit to the Government with a direction to recover the value of the rice from respondent No.6. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, respondent No.6 has filed an appeal before respondent No.3. By order, dated 30.03.2011, respondent No.3 has allowed the appeal and remanded the same to respondent No.1 for fresh enquiry and passing order after duly examining the records. After remand, respondent No.1 has passed the impugned order.
I have heard Mr.P.Nagendra Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies representing respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Mr.K.Chidambaram, learned Counsel for respondent No.6.
At the outset, it needs to be observed that respondent Nos.1 and 3 have committed a fundamental procedural error. They made an erroneous approach in believing that respondent No.1 is vested with the power to impose penalties for misuse/misappropriation of any commodity. Indeed, no such power exists in respondent No.1. It is only respondent No.3 as Collector (CS), who has the power and jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) and confiscate the stock with respect to which respondent No.6 has, allegedly, failed to account for.
As regards respondent No.1, being licensing authority, his power is confined to dealing with the authorization of respondent No.6 and deciding after enquiry whether the allegations made against him are true and if so, whether his authorization is liable for cancellation. Respondent No.1 has arrogated to himself the power of respondent No.3 in directing recovery of the value of the rice, which was, allegedly, not accounted for by respondent No.6 and respondent No.3 has, in turn, abdicated his powers to respondent No.1 in that regard. Therefore, to set the record straight, respondent No.3 is directed to initiate proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act based on the report submitted by the District Supply Offer or any other subordinate official following the inspection of the fair price shop of respondent No.6.
As regards the impugned order, when respondent No.3 has remanded the case to respondent No.1, instead of holding a full-fledged enquiry and passing an order as to whether the authorization of respondent No.6 is liable for cancellation, he has temporarily restored the authorization of respondent No.6. In my opinion, the approach of respondent No.1 is wholly irrational and illegal. He was expected to pass a final order after holding a full-fledged enquiry on the serious allegation of misuse of 103.44 quintals of SGRY rice. As alleged by the petitioner, the temporary restoration of the fair price shop authorization of respondent No.6 is wholly uncalled for as such an action would encourage corruption and send a wrong message that the State is condoning the malpractices of the fair price shop dealers. By any stretch of imagination, the authorization of respondent No.6 could not have been temporarily restored in the face of the serious allegations made against him and the order passed earlier holding that he failed to account for the huge stock of SGRY rice.
In this view of the matter, the impugned order in Roc.No.2222/2012/C, dated 15.07.2014, passed by respondent No.1, cannot be sustained and the same is, accordingly, set aside. Respondent No.3 shall initiate proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Respondent No.1 shall hold an enquiry only on the aspect as to whether respondent No.6 has properly accounted for the SGRY rice and whether his authorization is liable for cancellation or not. While holding such an enquiry, respondent No.1 shall give an opportunity of being heard to respondent No.6, the petitioner and any other card holder, who comes forward to participate therein, and pass a final order within three months from the date of receipt of this order. Respondent No.1 shall make temporary arrangement for distribution of essential commodities through another agency pending passing of final order by him after enquiry.
The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed to the extent indicated above.
As a sequel, interim order, dated 06-08-2014 is vacated and WVMP.No.2281 of 2014 in/& WPMP.No.27969 of 2014 are disposed of.
(C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Dt: 11th November, 2014
LUR