Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
B.T. Thikkaiah, vs Smt P. Mobi on 3 September, 2024
APHC010327802024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Bench Sr.No:-4
[3483]
AT AMARAVATI
WRIT APPEAL NO: 723 of 2024
B. T. Thikkaiah ...Appellant
Vs.
Smt P. Mobi and others ...Respondents
**********
Sri Mahadeva Kanthrigala, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Sridevi Jampani, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Smt S. Pranathi, learned Special Government Pleader for the State.
CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR
SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
DATE : 3rd September 2024
PC:
The present Writ Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and
order dated 10.05.2024 passed in Writ Petition No.37070 of 2022.
2. The writ petition supra was filed by respondent No.1 - Smt P. Mabi
challenging the order dated 05.11.2022 passed by the Revenue Divisional
Officer, Pattikonda whereby the R.D.O., upon enquiry, concluded that the
certificates possessed and submitted by respondent No.1 were fake and
bogus and consequently, the fair price shop authorization issued in her favour
based upon such certificates was not warranted and accordingly, ordered the
cancellation of the said authorization.
3. The aforementioned order came to be set aside by the learned single
Judge by way of the judgment and order impugned on the ground that on the
date when respondent No.1 came to be appointed as a fair price shop dealer
in the year 1997, there were no educational qualifications prescribed for such
an appointment. It was said that the qualifications came to be incorporated for
the first time by virtue of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System
Control Order, 2001 (for short, "the Control Order, 2001"), which prescribed
that for appointment of a fair price shop dealer, qualification of Class VII was
necessary.
4. The learned single Judge held that the qualification criteria, which came
into effect from 2001, could not be implemented retrospectively. It appears,
on a reading of the judgment and order impugned, that a show cause notice
had earlier been issued to respondent No.1 vide proceedings dated
18.01.2005, which was set aside by virtue of order dated 23.01.2006 on the
ground of non-observance of principles of natural justice with liberty to the
official respondents to proceed against respondent No.1. The learned
single Judge noted that despite the liberty granted in the year 2006, a show
cause notice came to be issued only on 03.12.2021 and since respondent
No.1 had been continuing to act as a fair price shop dealer, there was no
complaint on account of acting as such, the impugned proceedings based
upon which the R.D.O. had proceeded to pass the order was nothing but
harassment of the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the view expressed
by the learned single Judge cannot be accepted when it has clearly been
found that the certificates furnished by respondent No.1 were not genuine.
However, learned counsel for the appellant has failed to satisfy us on the
ground that the qualification criteria framed by the Government came in much
later than the appointment of respondent No.1 in the year 1997. In any event,
we do not find that the appellant has any locus to file the present writ appeal
notwithstanding the fact that he was incorporated as a party respondent in the
writ proceedings. The appellant is not a contender for appointment as a fair
price shop dealer and in any case, does not express any grievance with
regard to the actual discharge of functions of respondent No.1 as a fair price
shop dealer. If at all it is the Government which can come up in an appeal
against the impugned order. We, therefore, hold that the appellant is not the
person aggrieved and therefore, has no locus to file the present appeal and
the same is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ
RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J
AMD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
WRIT APPEAL NO: 723 of 2024
Dt : 03.09.2024
AMD
