HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.14849 of 2010
Date: April 15, 2014
Between:
M. Sujatha.
… Petitioner And
1. The District Collector, Chittoor & 2 others.
… Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.14849 of 2010
O R D E R:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.
2. The petitioner is the President of Sagarika Mahila Mandali and it was given authorization under clause 5 of A.P. Public Distribution System (Control) order, 2001, to run fair price shop No.14 at Valmikipuram Village and Mandal, Chittoor District. The said authorization was suspended on 06.04.2007 on the ground of certain irregularities by the Sub-Collector, Madanapalle, in his proceedings dated 06.04.2007. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent issued a show cause notice on 04.10.2007 alleging that the petitioner failed to deliver 19.80 quintals of SJRY (Spl. Comp) rice to the coolies in time who were engaged for construction of NTR Degree College, though stocks were received in the month of April 2006. The petitioner submitted her explanation on 18.10.2007 followed by another explanation dated 05.06.2007. The 3rd respondent, without considering the said explanation in proper perspective, cancelled the authorization of the petitioner by proceedings dated 14.07.2009. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent on 17.08.2009 and the same was also dismissed on 18.01.2010. The 2nd respondent while disposing of the appeal held that the explanation submitted by the dealer was not supported by any evidence and the explanation which was offered before the 3rd respondent is repeated in the appeal without any records and hence the charges are held proved. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed a revision before the first respondent on 29.03.2010 and the same was dismissed on 19.04.2010 with the following order:
“Heard the arguments and perused the records placed before me. The counsel for the revision petitioner not filed any written explanation and stated that the grounds of revision itself treated as written submission. As seen from the records, the revision petitioner has just reiterated the same facts presented before the lower Court and requested to consider the documents filed at the time of hearing of the appeal.
The revision petitioner has not raised any fresh grounds other than those raised in appeal, for consideration.
Hence, I see no reason to interfere with the order passed in appeal.
Therefore, the revision petition is dismissed.”
3. Thus, the orders passed by respondents 1 and 2 are without any reasons. They have not adverted to the explanation submitted by the petitioner for the allegations levelled against her.
4. In the circumstances, the orders passed by respondents 1 and 2 are set aside and the matter is remitted to the 2nd respondent for consideration of the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the 3rd respondent dated 14.07.2009 afresh and pass appropriate orders thereon after issuing notice to the petitioner. The interim order passed by this Court on 28.06.2010 directing the respondents not to make any permanent appointment of the dealer in respect of fair price shop No.14 of Valmikipuram Village and Mandal, Chittoor District, would continue till disposal of the appeal by the 2nd respondent.
5. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence. No costs.
A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J Date: April 15, 2014 BSB
76 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.14849 of 2010
Date: April 15, 2014
BSB