Telangana High Court
A. Shankariah vs The State Of Telangana, on 3 January, 2022
Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, Abhinand Kumar Shavili
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
Writ Petition Nos.14906, 14908, 14913, 14916, 14920,
14930 of 2015 and 11251 of 2016
COMMON ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)
Regard being had to the controversy involved in the
aforesaid cases, they were heard together and are being
decided by a common order.
The facts of W.P.No.14913 of 2015 are reproduced
as under:-
The present writ petition is arising out of an order
dated 12.07.2014 by which the authorisation granted in
favour of the petitioner in respect of a fair price shop has
been cancelled.
The facts of the case reveal that the petitioner was
issued authorisation under the Andhra Pradesh State
Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008
(hereinafter referred to as, the Control Order), on
14.05.2013 to run a fair price shop i.e., fair price shop
No.174. The petitioner thereafter contested the election
under the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, and
was elected as MPTC-I in the elections of the year 2014.
The undisputed facts further reveal that the allotment of
fair price shop to the petitioner was as per the Control
2
Order and Clause 17(C) of the Control Order reads as
under:-
"17(C) Taking part in Political Activities:- No
Fair Price shop dealer/Nominated Retailer/Hawker
shall take part in any political activity directly or
indirectly in any General/Municipal/Panchayath Raj
elections, hampering the public distribution system
and the authorisation granted to him/her under the
Order shall be cancelled, if he/she is found involved in
such political activity/canvassing."
The aforesaid Control Order makes it very clear that
a person, who has been allotted a fair price shop, will not
take part in political activity directly or indirectly or in
any municipal elections or panchayat raj elections. The
petitioner with open eyes accepted the aforesaid
condition and applied for allotment of shop and she was
allotted fair price shop No.174 at Teegalaguttapally
Village, Karimnagar. After she was elected as MPTC, a
show cause notice was issued on 06.06.2014 calling
upon her to explain the reasons as to why her
authorisation in respect of the fair price shop be not
cancelled. Thereafter, she submitted a detailed reply to
the show cause notice. The competent authority has
finally passed an order on 12.07.2014 cancelling the
authorisation of fair price shop under the Control Order,
against which an appeal was preferred in the matter.
3
The appeal was also dismissed on 29.04.2015. The
petitioner has now preferred the writ petition taking
shelter of a judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Somnath Rath v. Bikram K. Arukh
and others1. She has also placed reliance upon the
judgment delivered by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh
in W.P.No.14189 of 2006 and batch and her contention is
that no such condition can come in the way of the
petitioner in the matter of allotment of fair price shop
keeping in view the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. Reliance has also been placed upon the
executive instructions issued by the State Election
Commission.
There is no quarrel in respect of contesting the
election under the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act.
The issue before this Court is whether the petitioner can
continue with the authorisation/allotment of fair price
shop even after she has contested the election and has
been declared successful in the election. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Somnath Rath (supra) has
dealt with an altogether different controversy. It was a
case where a dealer under the public distribution system
was contesting in the election of Member of Legislative
1
AIR 1999 SC 3417
4
Constituency and his candidature was rejected keeping
in view Sections 9A and 100(1)(c) of the Representation of
the People Act, 1951.
In the aforesaid case, it has certainly been held that
public distribution dealership is not a disqualification for
being chosen as a Member of Legislative Assembly.
However, the fact remains that in the present case, at the
time of allotment of shop, there was a categorical
condition under the Control Order i.e., Clause 17(C),
which provided a bar in taking part in the political
activities. The petitioner, with open eyes, has accepted
the aforesaid condition and now after contesting the
elections and after being declared successful, wants to
continue with the fair price shop.
In the considered opinion of this Court, the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was delivered in
an altogether different context. It is nobody's case that
the petitioner was stopped from contesting the election or
her nomination papers were rejected and therefore, as
there was a condition while allotting the fair price shop to
the petitioner, the question of interference by this Court
in respect of the show cause notice and the subsequent
orders passed by the respondents does not arise.
5
The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. The
miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ
______________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
03.01.2022 vs
