THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition Nos.23925, 23929 & 23932 of 2014 Between:
Dated 27th November, 2014 Raghavendra Dwacra Group And …Petitioner
(W.P.No.23925 of 2014)
The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others …Respondents
(W.P.No.23925 of 2014)
Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K.Ramakanth Reddy
(W.P.No.23925 of 2014)
Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies (AP)
(W.P.No.23925 of 2014)
The Court made the following:
COMMON ORDER:
At the interlocutory stage, the writ petitions are taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
These three writ petitions have been filed feeling aggrieved by the common proceedings in Roc/A3/4351/2014, dated 23.07.2014, of respondent No.2, whereby he has discontinued the petitioners as temporary fair price shop dealers and directed the shops being run by them to be attached to neighbouring fair price shops.
Consequent on arising of permanent vacancies in respect of the three fair price shops in question, the petitioners were authorised by the Tahsildar, Madanapalle to distribute the essential commodities. Petitioner No.1 has been functioning as fair price shop dealer from 30.01.2010; petitioner No.2 from 01.03.2012 and petitioner No.3 from 01.01.2011.
Respondent No.2 has issued notices to the petitioners, wherein they were called upon to submit relevant orders issued in their favour for running the fair price shops either by the Tahsildar or by the Sub- Collector, Madanapalle. In reply to the said notices, the petitioners have submitted their respective representations, wherein they have informed that when permanent vacancies arose and when in-charge arrangements were sought to be made by the officials, neighbouring dealers have expressed their disinclination to run the shops and that the Tahsildar upon holding an enquiry, selected women’s groups and sent proposals to the then Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalle on whose instructions the Tahsildar has authorised the petitioners to act as the fair price shop dealers. They have also stated that from the time of their appointment as fair price shop dealers, they have been running the shops without any complaint whatsoever.
Respondent No.2 passed the impugned orders, wherein he has observed that out of nine dealers to whom notices were issued, only two dealers produced the appointment orders issued by the Revenue Divisional Officers and that after G.O.Ms.No.4, Consumer Affairs Food & Civil Supplies (CS.I) Department, dated 19.02.2011, was issued, even temporary arrangements for attaching the cards to nearby fair price shops shall be ordered by the appointing authority and not by the Tahsildar/ASO. Respondent No.2 has accordingly directed the Tahsildar to attach fair price shops to the nearest fair price shops to avoid inconvenience to cardholders.
Respondent No.2 filed a counter affidavit, wherein he has inter a l i a stated that consequent on cancellation of fair price shop authorisations, the then Tahsildar has temporarily attached the fair price shops to the petitioners and that as per G.O.Ms.No.4, dated 19.02.2011, such temporary arrangements also have to be made by the appointing authority.
The fact that the petitioners have been authorised by the Tahsildar is not in dispute. The petitioners in their representations made to respondent No.2, have categorically stated that the said arrangement was made on the approval given by respondent No.3 to respondent No.4. No finding has been rendered by respondent No.2 in the impugned order as to whether the said claim of the petitioners is correct or not. The fact however remains that while petitioner No.1 was continued as dealer for more than 4 ½ years, petitioner No.3 was continued for more than 3 ½ years and petitioner No.2 was continued for more than 3 years. There is no whisper either in the impugned order or in the counter affidavit that the petitioners have been indulging in the acts of misfeasance or malfeasance in running the fair price shops. The petitioners are self help groups being run by women. Evidently, they were chosen by respondent No.4 for distributing the essential commodities when the neighbouring dealers allegedly have not come forward to discharge the said duty. If the competent authority, namely, respondent No.2 or respondent No.3, as the case may be, has not given formal approval for temporary appointments, the petitioners cannot be blamed for the same. It is not as if the petitioners have any role to play in the procedural irregularities stated to have occurred in not giving formal appointment orders by the appointing authority.
In his counter affidavit, respondent No.2 has not furnished any explanation as to why he has not taken steps to fill up the vacancies on permanent basis and has been allowing ad hoc arrangements to continue for years. If at all, the fault lies with the respondents in not filling up the vacancies on permanent basis. In the absence of any allegation made against the petitioners, there is no justification to remove them only on the technical objection that no formal appointment orders were issued by respondent No.2 or respondent No.3. Such an approach on the part of the respondents is opposed to the doctrine of fairness and reasonableness.
For the above-mentioned reasons, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and the same are accordingly set aside. The respondents are therefore directed to continue the petitioners as temporary fair price shop dealers till the vacancies are filled up on permanent basis.
At the hearing, it has been submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for civil Supplies (AP) appearing for the respondents that there are no legal impediments for filling up the vacancies on permanent basis as the orders of cancellation of authorisations of the previous fair price shop dealers have become final.
Therefore, respondent No.2 is directed to initiate steps for filling up the vacancies on permanent basis and complete the whole process, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The writ petitions are accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above.
As a sequel to disposal of the writ petitions, pending interlocutory applications shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 27th November, 2014
VGB