High Court · 2006

Order

The petitioner was appointed as fair price shop dealer of Vemulapudi village, Narsipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, in the year 1992. By order dated

18.02.2002 passed by the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsipatnam, the authorization of the petitioner was suspended pending enquiry into certain alleged irregularities in distribution of rice meant for Food For Work programme. The said order was passed on the basis of an inspection report submitted by the 4th respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, Narsipatnam Mandal, in pursuance of which, proceedings were also initiated under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for confiscation of the seized rice. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent issued a show cause notice dated 16.04.2002, calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why his authorization should not be cancelled. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation denying all the charges levelled against him. However, the 3rd respondent vide proceedings dated 29.04.2002, cancelled the authorization of the

petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent - Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam, which was dismissed by order dated

3.08.2002. Though the petitioner preferred a Revision Petition, the same was also dismissed by the 1st respondent-District Collector Visakhapatnam, by order dated

12.12.2002. Hence this Writ Petition seeking a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 29.04.2002, as confirmed by the respondents 2 and 3, and to declare the same as arbitrary and illegal. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and perused the material on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that all the allegations made against the petitioner are false and without any basis, and the 3rd respondent had erroneously cancelled the authorization without considering the explanation offered by the petitioner in proper perspective. The learned counsel also contends that the respondents 2 and 3 had confirmed the order of cancellation without application of mind to the material placed record. It is also contended that since the only allegation was that the petitioner misappropriated the rice meant for distribution under Food For Work programme, even assuming that such a charge is proved, the impugned order of cancellation of the authorization is highly disproportionate and unwarranted. The learned counsel while pointing out that the confiscation of the seized rice ordered by the Joint Collector under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the E.C. Act’) was set aside on an appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 6-C of the E.C. Act, submits that in the circumstances it would be just and proper to restore the authorization of the petitioner. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader submits that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the respondents 1 to 3 do not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A perusal of the material on record shows that the impugned proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on the basis of a report submitted by the 4th respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, alleging that 120 quintals of rice meant for distribution under Food For Work programme, was diverted by the petitioner illegally. The case of the respondents was that the villagers of Vemulapudi having intercepted a lorry with 120 quintals of rice relating to Food For Work on the midnight of 15-2-2002 being transported without any bill or permit, made a complaint to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Narsipatnam with a request to initiate necessary action against the concerned persons. In pursuance thereof, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Narsipatnam visited the village on 16-2-2002 and enquired into the matter. During the enquiry, the villagers stated that a lorry came to the fair price shop of the petitioner on the night of 15-2-2002 and they witnessed loading of Food For Work rice into the lorry. Hence, they waited at the village boundary and caughthold the lorry along with the rice and handed over the same to the Station House Officer, Narsipatnam. In continuation of enquiry, the Mandal Revenue Officer surprised the fair price shop of the petitioner and noticed variations in stock balance and reported the same to the Revenue Divisional Officer, who, in turn, initiated disciplinary proceedings. In the show cause notice three charges were levelled against the petitioner, which run as under: “Charge No.1: As per Condition No. 11 of the authorization issued to the F.P. Shop under Cl.3 of the A.P.S.C. (R.D.C.S) Order, 1973 as per the instructions of the authorities issue register has to be maintained. But, you have not maintained issue register of rice meant for Food For Work programme. Charge No.2: As per conditions 4, 6, and 7 of authorization issued under Cl.3 of the A.P.S.C. (R.D.C.S) Order, 1973 rice should not be distributed to others except to the coupon holders allotted to the shop under Food For Work programme. But you have distributed 120 quintals of rice to Bochu Srinivas, Madika Village, Almur Mandal, East Godavari District for your pecuniary gains. Charge No.3: As per cond.4 & 6 of the authorization issued under Cl.3 of the A.P.S.C. (R.D.C.S.) Order, 1973, acquaintance has to be taken from the beneficiaries for distribution of rice under Food For Work programme. But, you transported 120 qts rice to the black market through the Lorry No.AP.5- 4626 for getting pecuniary benefits without obtaining a quittance from the beneficiaries.” As can be seen, all the three charges relate to alleged irregularities in distribution of rice meant for Food For Work programme. The petitioner in his explanation denied all the said allegations. So far as Charge No.1 is concerned, the petitioner stated that prior to 13-1-2002 there were no specific instructions by the concerned authorities to the fair price shop dealers to maintain registers for the distribution of rice meant for Food For Work programme. The petitioner also stated that the Government did not issue any guidelines prior to 13-1-2002 and the fair price shop dealers were instructed to collect the coupons from the beneficiaries and to deliver the quantity of rice mentioned in that coupon. The coupons collected from the beneficiaries were required to be handed over to the concerned authority. Specific instructions to maintain the Issue Register were given by the authorities only from 13-1-2002 and admittedly the petitioner has been maintaining Issue Registers from that date. So far as the 2nd charge is concerned, the petitioner explained that he distributed 120 quintals of rice to the persons who produced the coupons to that effect and the coupons as well as the Issue Register were handed o v e r by the Deputy Tahsildar (Civil Supplies) at the time of inspection. The beneficiaries deposed before the Inspecting Officials that they received 120 quintals rice from the petitioner. However, the 3rd respondent did not examine the beneficiaries nor conducted any further enquiry. Even the coupons submitted by the beneficiaries which were seized by the Deputy Tahsildar of Civil Supplies and particularly the sworn affidavits given by the beneficiaries were not considered. On a perusal of the findings recorded by the 3rd respondent, it is clear that he failed to take into consideration the abovesaid explanation, but merely concluded that the charges are proved on the ground that admittedly the petitioner had produced the Issue Register only from 13-1-2002. The specific plea of the petitioner that prior to 13-1-2002, there were no instructions to the fair price shop dealers to maintain Issue Register for the rice distributed under Food For Work scheme was n o t considered at all by the 3rd respondent. The said plea has not even been answered in the counter to this writ petition. Even the finding with regard to the allegation that the petitioner diverted 120 quintals of rice to the black-market through Lorry No.AP-5-4626 was based only on the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Narsipatnam. It is relevant to note that on the basis of the very same report submitted by the Mandal Revenue Officer dated 17.02.2002, proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, were initiated for confiscation, but ultimately the order of confiscation was set aside by the learned District Judge. A copy of the order in Criminal Appeal No.52/2002 placed before this Court shows that a clear finding was recorded that the petitioner could not be found fault for the rice seized from the lorry. Admittedly, the said order has become final. It is also relevant to note that even in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents in this writ petition, it is stated that at the time of inspection it was revealed that the writ petitioner had purchased Food For Work rice from the labourers and sold to one Sri B. Srinivas of East Godavari District for his personal gain. It is further added that during enquiry also, it was established that the writ petitioner has purchased the rice from the labourers and sold to 3rd party. The said version of the respondents in a way substantiates the statements of the labourers, who filed their individual affidavits, before the Joint Collector stating that since the rice received by them was surplus i.e., more than their requirement and since there was no proper facilities for storage and since they were in need of money they sold the surplus rice to third parties. The 3rd respondent failed to take into consideration the above aspects, and even the Appellate authority as well as the Revisional Authority did not apply their mind to the said facts but merely confirmed the order of the 3rd respondent. That apart, even assuming that the petitioner had committed any irregularity in distribution of rice under Food For Work programme, which is not part of Public Distribution System, the same cannot be held to be violative of conditions of authorization issued under 1973 Control Order and on that ground also the cancellation of authorization is unwarranted and unjustified. For the reasons aforementioned, the order of cancellation of authorization passed by the 3rd respondent, as confirmed in the Appeal as well as Revision, is set aside and the Writ Petition is disposed of leaving it open to the respondents to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law in the light of the observations made above. No costs. March , 2006. Kgr ________________ (G. ROHINI, J.) THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.5208 OF 2003 March , 2006. Between: Padmanabhuni Narayana Murthy. .. Petitioner. And The District Collector, Visakhapatnam and three others. .. Respondents.