N.Ramakrishna Reddy,Anot vs State Of ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2449 Tel

      THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD
  FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                    (Special Original Jurisdiction)

         FRIDAY THIS THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY
                TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN

                              PRESENT

  THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA
                    RAO

  WRIT PETITION Nos.20084, 20092, 20116, 20122,
20126, 20149, 20171, 20178, 20187 and 20202 of 2015

Between:
S.Srinivas and 9 other individuals
                                                      .....

PETITIONERS

AND State of Telangana, Rep.by its Principal Secetary, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplied Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 7 others .....RESPONDENTS

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 17.07.2015

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No may be allowed to see the Judgments?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No marked to Law Reporters/Journals

2. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wishes Yes/No to see the fair copy of the Judgment?

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO

WRIT PETITION Nos.20084, 20092, 20116, 20122, 20126, 20149, 20171, 20178, 20187 and 20202 of 2015

COMMON ORDER:

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned

Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.

2. These 10 writ petitions are filed by the Fair Price Shop Dealers within the Nizamabad Urban revenue division, Nizamabad

individually. These writ petitions are filed challenging the orders

passed by the 5th respondent on 08.06.2015 cancelling their

authorizations.

3. The learned Government Pleader obtained written instructions, which disclose that, the Deputy Tahsildar (Enforcement),

Nizamabad verified the list of SKS references numbers with reference

to UID (Aadhar) numbers data and found that some of the SKS

references are placed with "B" series instead of "NZU" series which is

the unique code allotted to Nizamabad urban. So, he has submitted

the list of 10 fair price shop dealers in which "B" series SKS are found

and submitted a report for deleting the cards in the monthly allotment and shifted the same to a dummy shop. He reported the matter to the

Collector (CS), Nizamabad. The Collector (CS), Nizamabad took the

matter seriously and issued instructions to the Revenue Divisional

Officer, Nizamabad to suspend the said 10 dealers holding that they

have indulged in malpractice by getting other SKS references allotted

to their shops by influencing the computer operators who know the

process of the Electronic Public Distribution System Site.

4. Accordingly, orders were passed on 30.03.2015 suspending

the authorizations of all the dealers and pending enquiry, all the

dealers approached this Court by filing writ petitions and this Court

directed the 5th respondent to conduct enquiry and pass final orders.

After receipt of the orders of this Court on 11.05.2015, the 5th

respondent entrusted the matter to the Tahsildar, Nizamabad on

12.05.2015 to enquire into the matter and submit a report. It appears

that the Tahsildar, Nizamabad issued a show cause notice on

18.05.2015 to all the 10 fair price dealers and after submission of

explanations by the petitioners, he submitted a report to the 5th

respondent on 28.05.2015. After receipt of the report from the

Tahsildar, Nizamabad, the 5th respondent issued notices on

28.05.2015 itself asking the petitioners to appear personally on

04.06.2015. On the basis of the report submitted by the Tahsildar, Nizamabad and the explanations submitted by the petitioners on

04.06.2015, the impugned orders of cancellation of their authorizations were passed on 08.06.2015. Challenging the said orders, the present

writ petitions are filed.

5. A perusal of the impugned orders show that the matter relating to the petitioners was consulted with the officials of the

National Informatics Centre, Nizamabad and after noticing that there is

no provision in District Level Administration login, the 5th respondent suspected some irregular activities being conducted by the Dealers in collusion with the staff of E+PDS Admin System. The impugned orders further disclose that when the Tahsildar along with his staff inspected the shops, one of the employees of the shops admitted the

illegal activities being conducted by the Dealers. Ultimately, the

impugned orders were passed by the 5th respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Nizamabad individually holding as follows:

"....I have examined the records made available before me and explanation of dealer and found that the FPS dealer intentionally colluded with the Computer Programmer/Operator and got entered fake SKS data for FSC cards and for claiming ECs on such cards though they are not bona fide beneficiaries. The explanation offered by FPS dealer is not convincing. Thus the FPS dealer has contravened Clause 17 of the AP PDS (Control) Order, 2008 as such the authorization of dealership is liable for cancellation."

6. A perusal of the narration of events and the impugned orders show that there was some suspicion with regard to the irregular

activities conducted by the dealers and what were the irregularity activities are not ultimately settled. No finding was recorded. The

dealers appeared before the 5th respondent on 04.06.2015 and the impugned orders were passed on 08.06.2015 without conducting any

enquiry. This Court speaking through a Division Bench in M.Kalyani v [1] District Collector, Prakasam District held that the report, which

formed basis for the order of cancellation, should be supplied to the dealers, and in the present case such an effort appears to have not been made. In another case a Division Bench of this Court in Ambati

[2] Srinivasulu v. District Collector, Nellor held that it is necessary to record reasons in support of the findings and conclusions, which should form part of the order of cancellation.

7. Since the orders of cancellation violate the said law laid

down by this Court and apparently no enquiry was conducted before passing the final orders of cancellation of authorizations, this Court is inclined to allow these writ petitions by setting aside the impugned

orders dated 08.06.2015, but giving liberty to the 5th respondent to

conduct an enquiry pursuant to the explanations submitted by the petitioners and complete the same, within a period of 3 (three) months

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

8. These 10 Writ Petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any in all these 10 writ petitions, shall stand closed in consequence.

_________________________ A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO,J Date: 17.07.2015 Dsr

[1] 2006(5) ALD 796 (DB) [2] 2006(1) ALT 273 (DB)