* The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy + Writ Petition No.36424 of 2014 % Dated 09.12.2014 Between:
# Machepalli Hanumantha Rao And State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Prl.Secretary, Civil Supplies Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad and 4 others.
…Petitioner …Respondents ! Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.T.Niranjan ^ Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies (AP) <GIST:
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases cited:
The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.36424 of 2014 Dated 09.12.2014 Between:
Machepalli Hanumantha Rao And State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Prl.Secretary, Civil Supplies Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad and 4 others.
…Petitioner …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.T.Niranjan Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies (AP) The Court made the following:
Order:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents, in not continuing the petitioner as the authorized dealer of fair price shop No.21 of Kuchipudi Village, Marripudi Mandal, Prakasam District, and in making arrangements for distribution of the essential commodities to the cardholders of the said shop through in-charge dealer, as illegal and arbitrary.
The petitioner pleaded that respondent No.5 has forced him to send his resignation letter on the purported ground of his ill-health and that therefore, the Superior officials ought not to have acted upon such resignation letter.
On 28-11-2014, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies (AP), representing the respondents, has taken time for producing the relevant record. Accordingly, the record has been produced today.
A perusal of the record shows that a letter was addressed in the name of the petitioner on 12-07-2014. This letter, which is in Telugu language, makes an interesting reading. The true translation of the said letter reads as under:
“I have been working as the fair price shop dealer of Kuchipudi Village for the last six years. During my entire tenure, I have been distributing the essential commodities without causing any inconvenience to the card holders and no complaints have ever been made by the card holders against me. However, the Revenue Inspector has forced me to submit my resignation letter on the purported ground of my ill-health. Therefore, my resignation may be accepted with effect from 12-07-2014.”
The Tahsildar, Marripudi Mandal, through his proceeding in Rc.B/329/2014, dated 18-07- 2014, addressed to respondent No.4 has forwarded the resignation letters of as many as seven dealers including the petitioner. He has also issued another proceeding in Rc.B/315/2014, dated 21-07-2014, whereunder he has appointed the neighbouring fair price shop dealer as in- charge of the petitioner’s fair price shop. Thereafter, the Tahsildar has addressed a letter vide Rc/B/315/2014, dated 29-10-2014, to respondent No.4 wherein he has sent the proposal for appointment of one Papanaboina Samudra Kumari, Daughter of Venkateswarlu, as the temporary dealer. The record does not reveal that respondent No.4 has accepted the said proposal and appointed the temporary dealer.
From the contents of the purported resignation letter of the petitioner, it is ex facie evident that he has sent the same on the pressure exerted by respondent No.5- Revenue Inspector, Marripudi Mandal. The Tahsildar, Marripudi Mandal, instead of straight away refusing to receive such letter on the ground that the same was not voluntary, not only forwarded the same to respondent No.4 for its acceptance but also recommended the name of another person to be appointed as the temporary dealer. The entire procedure followed in this regard mocks at the doctrine of fair play. Unfortunately, respondent No.4 has also not passed any order refusing to accept the purported resignation of the petitioner.
In respect of four other fair price shop dealers, whose names have been mentioned in letter, dated 18-07-2014, of the Tahsildar, Marripudi Mandal, W.P.Nos.34825, 34892, 34837 & 34174 of 2014, filed by them were allowed by this Court, on 20-11-2014. While declaring that the petitioners therein shall be treated as having been continuing as the dealers for the reason that the purported resignation letters sent by them were not valid in law, this Court directed respondent No.2- Collector (CS), Prakasam District, to hold a detailed enquiry into the conduct of the Officials, who were found responsible for engineering those resignation letters.
Indeed, this case stands on a far superior footing for the reason that the very resignation letter itself contains the statement of the petitioner that he has been sending the same on the pressure exerted by respondent No.5- Revenue Inspector, Marripudi Mandal. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that the purported resignation letter of the petitioner is involuntary and the same was, evidently, orchestrated by respondent No.5.
For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed with the direction to respondent No.4 to treat the petitioner as having never resigned from the post of the fair price shop dealer. Respondent No.2 is directed to examine the conduct of respondent No.5 and consider initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him for forcibly obtaining the resignation letter from the petitioner.
As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.45598 of 2014, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.
(C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J)
Dt: 9th December, 2014
Note:
LR copies
(B/o) LUR