The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.38315 of 2014 Dated 12.12.2014 Between:
Y.Nagaraja Naidu And The State of A.P., rep. by its Prl.Secretary Civil Supplies Dept., Hyderabad and 4 others.
…Petitioner …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.Bhaskar Ghandam Counsel for the respondents: GP for Civil Supplies (AP) The Court made the following:
Order:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside the order in D.Dis.(C1)765/2010, dated 14-10-2014, passed by respondent No.2, whereby he has dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner.
The petitioner was a fair price shop dealer of Rangappavaripalle Village, Kalakada Mandal, Chittoor District. A show cause notice was issued to him in the year 2005 as to why his authorization shall not be cancelled as he had stopped lifting the stocks of essential commodities abruptly from the year 2000. After considering the petitioner’s explanation, respondent No.4 has passed an order, on 21-07-2005, cancelling the petitioner’s authorization. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order before respondent No.3. By Order, dated 24-10-2005, respondent No.3 has dismissed the appeal by confirming the order of respondent No.4. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed a revision petition before respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 vide Order, dated 18.12.2007, has allowed the revision petition and remanded the case for fresh disposal to respondent No.3 on the ground that he has not given the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, respondent No.3 had, after hearing the case, passed an order on 30-09-2009 confirming the order of respondent No.4. Assailing the same, the petitioner has filed a revision petition before respondent No.2, who, vide his order, dated 20.05.2010, confirmed the order of respondent No.3. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed WP.No.15548 of 2010. This Court allowed the said Writ Petition by order, dated 05-06-2014, on the short ground that while confirming the order of respondent No.3, respondent No.2 has not passed a speaking order. This Court has, accordingly, remanded the case to respondent No.2 for passing a fresh order. After remand, respondent No.2 has passed Order, dated 14-10-2014, dismissing the revision petition. It is this order, which is assailed in this Writ Petition.
The multi-round litigation resorted to by the petitioner is the result of the abrupt stoppage of his functions as the fair price shop dealer in the year 2000. The only reason, assigned by the petitioner in this regard, is his mother’ ill health.
In his latest order, which is impugned in this Writ Petition, respondent No.2 has clearly referred to the plea of the petitioner and rendered the following findings:
“During submission of written explanation filed by the petitioner before the appointing authority, a copy of Medical Certificate given by a Doctor, Private Nursing Home, Madanapelle, was enclosed. On verification of the Certificate, it is found that the doctor has certified that Smt.Y.Lakshmamma, mother of the present revision petitioner, has suffering from Hypecteumr and Diabets since 01-02-2011 and she has been advised rest for days. She was not admitted during the period of treatment.
Further copy of letter given to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kalakada, that he is unable to remit the DDs due to her mother’s ill-health and got permission has not been enclosed. Even during hearing of the case before the Joint Collector, Chittoor, as well as District Collector, Chittoor, the same has not produced by the dealer. It clearly shows that, (he) applied for permission before the Mandal Revenue Officers is totally false and the dealer has failed to remit the DDs thus caused much inconvenience to the card holders thereby it shows his negligence in distributing of Essential Commodities.”
From the facts considered by the hierarchical authorities, this Court is convinced that the petitioner has failed to lift the stocks of essential commodities from the year 2000 and refrained from functioning as the dealer till a show cause notice was issued five years later. Since then the petitioner has been continuing the litigation round after round. The fact, however, remains that the petitioner has not been functioning as the fair price shop dealer for the last 14 years.
For the above mentioned reasons, I do not find any reason to interfere with the orders passed by respondent Nos.2 to 4.
The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.47944 of 2014, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is dismissed as infructuous.
(C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Dt: 12th December, 2014
LUR