Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
D Guravaiah vs Bhurthi Pavani on 12 December, 2023
Author: R. Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R. Raghunandan Rao
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
Writ Appeal No.1130 of 2023
D. Guravaiah, S/o Surya Rao,
Aged about 45 years, Occ: Fair price
shop dealer (under suspension),
R/o Krishnapuram Village, Thondangi Mandal,
East Godavari District.
... Appellant
Versus
Bhurthi Pavani, W/o Gangarao,
Aged about 25 years, R/o H.No.2-188,
Ambedkar Street, Krishnapuram Village,
Thondangi Mandal, East Godavari District & others.
...Respondents
Mr. G.V. Shivaji, a/w Mr. P.V.V. Satyanarayana, Counsel for the
appellant.
Mr. V. Sai Kumar, Counsel for respondent No.1.
Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, Counsel for Respondent
Nos.2 and 3.
Government Pleader for Revenue, Counsel for Respondent Nos.4
and 5.
Dt.:12.12.2023
PER DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR (CJ) (Oral):
The present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against
the judgment and order, dated 05.09.2023, passed in W.P.
No.18425 of 2023.
2 HCJ & RRR,J
WA.No.1130_2023
2. Briefly stated, the material facts are that the appellant
herein was appointed as a fair price shop dealer, whose dealership
licence came to be suspended on certain allegations on 02.11.2017.
An Appeal came to be preferred by the appellant before the
appellate authority i.e., Joint Collector, which was allowed on
17.12.2021 restoring the dealership licence of the appellant.
Writ Petition came to be preferred by the private respondent
in W.P. No.18425 of 2023 challenging the action of the appellate
authority in allowing the Appeal preferred by the appellant herein
without affording to the said petitioner an opportunity of being
heard in terms of the ratio of the judgment rendered by a full Bench
of this Court in M. Vanaja v. B. Balaseshanna1. The full Bench in the
aforementioned judgment, while interpreting the Clause 20 and 21
of the A.P. Public Distribution System (Control Order) 2001, held
that even a temporary fair price shop dealer would come within the
purview of the phrase 'any person aggrieved' and therefore, was
entitled to prefer an appeal/revision, as the case may be, against
any order made under Clause 5 or under Clause 20(1) or 20(2) of
the said Control Order. It is in the background that the petition
came to be filed, which was allowed by virtue of the judgment and
2008 (1) ALT 520 (F.B.)
3 HCJ & RRR,J
WA.No.1130_2023
order impugned and the order of the appellate authority, dated
17.12.2021, was set aside with a direction to the appellate
authority to consider the case of the permanent dealer afresh after
giving notice and after considering the contentions of the
temporary dealer on merits.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the
learned single Judge committed an error in law in not appreciating
that the full Bench judgment in so many words did not say that the
temporary dealer be given a right of being heard at the stage of an
appeal, notwithstanding the fact that it had been decided.
It is pertinent here to mention that it is not the case of the
private respondent No.1 that any application had been filed by the
said respondent for consideration of the case of the said respondent
before the appellate authority. In the meantime, if a final order had
come to be passed by the appellate authority, the next remedy
which could have been availed by the said respondent would be by
filing a revision petition before the revisional authority in terms of
clause 21 of the 2008 Control Order.
While the learned counsel for the appellant does not question
the right of the temporary dealer to question the restoration of the
dealership of the appellant, yet what is stated is that the temporary
4 HCJ & RRR,J
WA.No.1130_2023
dealer would now have a right of being heard only in the revisional
proceedings and there was thus no occasion for the learned single
Judge to set aside the entire proceedings at the appellate stage.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The
full Bench judgment in M. Vanaja v. B. Balaseshanna (supra)
referred in the preceding paragraphs does clearly hold that a
temporary dealer has an independent right to prefer an appeal or
revision in terms of Clause 20 and 21 of the Control Order.
However, the judgment supra does not hold that an appeal or a
revision not preferred by a temporary dealer would not be
maintainable in the absence of such a temporary dealer being made
a party respondent in appeal proceedings initiated by a person
other than a temporary dealer. Insofar as the present case is
concerned, the appeal proceedings initiated by the appellant have
already culminated in a final order, dated 17.12.2021. There was
no occasion for the temporary dealer to file an appeal against the
order of suspension of the appellant's dealership, dated 02.11.2017.
The respondent in his capacity as a temporary dealer can now claim
to be the person aggrieved against the order passed in appeal
proceedings, dated 17.12.2021 and the remedy, which is available
to him, would be by way of a revision under the Control Order.
5 HCJ & RRR,J
WA.No.1130_2023
5. Be that as it may, we set aside the judgment and order
impugned and give liberty to respondent No.1 to approach the
revisional authority within ten days from today and if such a
revision is filed, the same be considered in accordance with law on
its own merits and appropriate orders be passed by way of a
speaking order within four weeks thereafter.
6. The Writ Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. No order
as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
AKN
6 HCJ & RRR,J
WA.No.1130_2023
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
Dt: 12.12.2023
AKN
