HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.14406 of 2010 DATED: 24.04.2014 Between:
Smt. S. Jayalakshmi ... Petitioner And The District Collector, Nalgonda district & others … Respondents The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.14406 of 2010 ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.
2. The petitioner is the fair price shop dealer of Thimmapur village, Aravapalli Mandal, Nalgonda District. During the month of September, 2008, the Mandal officials inspected the shop and verified the records of kerosene oil and seized the stock for contravention of clause 17 and 22 of APSPDS Control Order, 2008. A show cause was issued to the petitioner by framing the following three charges:
“1. That the respondent colluding with Sri Donakonda Venkateswarlu has stored 770 liters of PDS kerosene at unauthorised premises for diverting into black market and thereby contravened clause 17 of APPDS (Control) Order, 2008;
2. That when the team compared the book balances with reference to actual stocks and noticed variation of 457 liters as per coupons and 172 liters as per sales register in respect of PDS kerosene, thus the dealer is regularly diverting the PDS kerosene in to black market by not maintaining true and correct accounts and contravened clause 17, 22 of APPDS (Control) order 2008;
3. That the respondent dealer has informed only 10 liters kerosene as closing balance instead of 313 liters with an intention to divert the PDS kerosene in to black market.”
3. She submitted her explanation to each of the charges on 25.10.2008 and after considering the same, the Revenue Divisional Officer-3rd respondent, by order dated 03.01.2009 cancelled the authorisation. Against the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent by order dated 12.12.2008 while ordering confiscation of 100% value of variation quantity of 451 liters of kerosene in favour of the Government, held as follows:
“I have carefully considered the explanation of the respondent and gone through the connected records. The explanation of the dealer for the 1st charge is partially convincing, but the dealer has to obtain prior permission from the competent authority to receive and keep storage of kerosene at other than the FP Shop premises. The explanation of the respondent for the 2nd charge is not convincing, as even considering the 770 liters of kerosene as stock balance, there is an excess stock of 451 liters, and the respondent admitted herself that she has entered distribution @ 3 liters per card, by actually distributing 1 or 2 liters to some of the cardholders. The dealer has to maintain true and correct accounts by properly distributing the ECs to the cardholders as per their entitlement. Thus the dealer has contravened clause 17 of APPDS (Control) Order 2008 by making wrong entries in the register.”
4. The above order was passed in the proceedings arising under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. So far as the appeal against the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 03.01.2009, the 2nd respondent passed an order on 13.11.2009 holding as follows:
“I have carefully considered the arguments rendered by the
counsel for the appellant and gone through the connected records. The dealer has to obtain prior permission from the competent authority to receive and storage of kerosene at other than the FP shop premises. The version of the appellant regarding excess stock of kerosene is not convincing, as even considering the 770 liters of kerosene as stock balance, there is an excess stock of 451 liters, and the dealer admitted herself that she has been entered distribution of @ 3 liters per card, by actually distributing 1 or 2 liters to some of the cardholders. The dealer has to maintain true and correct accounts by properly distributing the ECs to the cardholders as per their entitlement. It is clearly established that the dealer neither properly distributing the ECs nor maintaining the records and accounts. The Revenue Divisional officer, Suryapet rightly considered and cancelled the FP shop authorisation of the appellant by following due procedure only. There is no need to interfere with the orders of the Revenue divisional officer, Suryapet in cancelling the FP shop authorisation of the appellant. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed by upholding the orders of the Revenue Divisional officer Suryapet passed in Procgs.No.D/2191/08, dated 03.01.2009.”
5. Against the above said order, a revision was preferred to the first respondent and the same was dismissed on 01.04.2010 extracting in verbatim to the order passed by the 2nd respondent up to the highlighted portion. Ultimately, he dismissed holding that he does not want to interfere with the order passed by the 2nd respondent confirming the order of the 3rd respondent.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation with regard to excess quantity of 451 liters stating that the authorities have examined the records of September, 2008 instead of the registers of August, 2008.
7. However, in view of the non-application of mind by the first respondent and extracting the order of the 2nd respondent in verbatim, I consider it appropriate to set aside the order of the 1st respondent and remand the matter to the 1st respondent for considering the revision filed by the petitioner afresh and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending miscellaneous petitions in this writ petition, if any, shall stand dismissed in consequence. No order as to costs.
A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J
Date: 24.04.2014 BSS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO 4 WRIT PETITION No.14406 of 2010 Date: 24.04.2014 BSS