HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.26168 of 2010 DATE: 20.06.2014 Between: Ramavath Chandru … Petitioner And The District Collector (CS) Mahabubnagar District & others … Respondents The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.26168 of 2010 ORDER:
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nagarkurnool-3rd respondent by proceedings dated 09.09.2009 appointed the 4th respondent as fair price shop (FPS) dealer for Lattupally village o f Bijinapally Mandal. Challenging his appointment, the petitioner, one of the aspirants, preferred an appeal under Clause 20(1) of APPDS (Control) order, 2008 before the Joint Collector, stating that the 4th respondent obtained loan under Rajiv Yuva Sakthi Scheme and was not residing in the village. In support of his claim, he produced a certificate issued by CEO, SETMAH (STEP), which shows that the 4th respondent along with others availed loan to a tune of Rs.50,000/-. In spite of the same, the 3rd respondent appointed the 4th respondent as FPS dealer. The Joint Collector in the appeal observed that as per Clause 12 (xvii) of G.O.Ms.No.52, CA, F&CS Department, dated 18.12.2008, a candidate who has already availed loan under any government schemes shall not be allotted FPS dealer. Hence, the appointment of the 4th respondent was not in conformity with the said provisions. He passed orders on 29.05.2010 allowing the appeal and setting aside the orders of the 4th Respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Nagarkurnool, dated 09.09.2009 through which the 4th respondent was appointed as FPS dealer. Challenging the said orders, the 4th respondent preferred a revision before the 1st respondent under Clause 17 of APPDS (Control) Order, 1982 on the ground that the Joint Collector has not considered the fact that he has not availed any such loan. The 1st respondent heard both parties and considered the documents filed by the 4th respondent and observed that as per no due certificate issued by the State Bank of India, Bijinepally, the 4th respondent-revision petitioner has not availed any loan under Rajiv Yuva Shakthi. The certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Bijinapally, shows that the 4th respondent is residing in the village since 2004 to till date. It was also observed that as per the certificate issued by the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Bijinapally, the petitioner was working as Adarsha Rythu. Accordingly, he set aside the orders passed by the Joint Collector in appeal dated 29.05.2010 and confirmed the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer-3rd respondent dated 09.09.2009. Challenging the same, the present writ petition was filed by the 1st respondent in the revision.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the list furnished by the Chief Executive Officer, SETMAH (STEP), Mahabubnagar shows that one E.Govind S/o E.Tarya availed a loan and the said fact was over-looked by the Revisional Authority. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 4th respondent submits that the person who availed the said loan is different from his client, 4th respondent.
3. A perusal of the names would show that E.Govind S/o Tarya is different from M.Govind S/o Hanmya. Thus, it is clear that there is no evidence to show that the 4th respondent has availed the loan.
4. In the circumstances, the order passed by the 1st respondent dated 07.10.2010 is up-held and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions in this writ petition, if any, shall stand dismissed in consequence. No order as to costs.
A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J
Date: 20.06.2014 BSS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO 9 WRIT PETITION No.26168 of 2010 Date: 20.06.2014 BSS