Telangana High Court
B.Shankaraiah S/O Rajaiah 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