Telangana High Court

Smt.Badavath Sarada, vs The State Of Telangana on 9 September, 2024

    THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

           WRIT PETITION No.8113 of 2017

ORDER:

This Petition is filed questioning the order vide

Rc.No.D/3666/2015 dated 27.02.2017, issued by the

2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer with regard

to the cancellation of authorization of the petitioner's

Fair Price Shop No.35028, Sarvaram Village, Sujatha

Nagar of Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader

for Civil Supplies appearing for respondents and

perused the material on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the petitioner has been appointed as Fair Price Shop

Dealer for F.P.Shop No.35028, Sarvaram Village,

Sujatha Nagar of Bhadradri Kothagudem District, since

1993. While it being so, a show-cause notice dated ::2::

SK, J WP_8113_ 2017

08.12.2016 was issued to the petitioner with regard to

cancel the authorization of the petitioner on the ground

that husband of the petitioner is a Government

employee. In response to the same, the petitioner has

submitted her explanation dated 29.12.2016 to the

respondent No.2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further

submits that as per G.O.Ms.No.12 dated 06.03.2012,

the respondent No.2 has issued another show-cause

notice dated 07.02.2017 on the ground that the family

members of the employees working in Girijana

Cooperative Corporation are also not entitled for any

dealership. In response to the same, the petitioner has

submitted her detailed explanation dated 14.02.2017 to

the respondent No.2 and stated that her husband has

been employed in the Girijana Cooperative Corporation

from the year, 1987. According to G.O.Ms.No.12, dated

06.03.2012, the department of Girijana Cooperative

Corporation was not indicated directly and Girijana ::3::

SK, J WP_8113_ 2017

Cooperative Corporation is a State Government Public

Sector undertaking and will run some FP Shops in

Agency areas under the guidelines of Revenue

Authorities and the Girijana Cooperative Corporation of

the employees cannot influence the PDS system in any

manner. On contrary to the explanation given by the

petitioner, the respondent No.2 has directly issued the

present impugned order dated 27.02.2017 and

cancelled the authorization without providing any

opportunity to her and the action of the respondents is

illegal and arbitrary, thereby, requested this Court to

allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned

order dated 27.02.2017 and restore the authorization

of the petitioner as fair price shop dealer.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil

Supplies appearing for the respondents, basing on the

counter affidavit, submits that the petitioner herself

admitted that her husband is working as an employee

in Girijana Cooperative Corporation and the Manager, ::4::

SK, J WP_8113_ 2017

GPCMs Ltd., Palvancha has also confirmed the same.

As per the provisions contained in G.O.Ms.No.12, dated

06.03.2012, the Family members of employees working

in Girijana Cooperative Corporation are also ineligible

for Fair Price Shop Dealership. Moreover, the

aforementioned Corporation comes under the

administrative control of Tribal Welfare Department.

6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil

Supplies further submits that as per Clause 4(4) of

Annexure-I of TSPDS (Control) Order, 2016, the

authorization issued under the order shall be liable for

suspension or cancellation. After careful examination,

the cancellation orders 27.02.2017 have been issued to

the petitioner. Both the show-cause notices issued to

the petitioner were for calling explanation on the

complaint petitions and violations observed therein by

the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kothagudem in

Rc.No.D/3666/2015 dated 08.12.2016 and ::5::

SK, J WP_8113_ 2017

07.02.2017. In view of the same, there is no valid

grounds and requested to dismiss the same.

7. After hearing both sides, this Court is of the

considered view that the petitioner is appointed as Fair

Price Shop dealer for Fair Price Shop No.35028,

Sarvaram Village, Sujatha Nagar of Bhadradri

Kothagudem District from the year, 1993. While it

being so, a show-cause notice dated 08.12.2016 was

issued to the petitioner to cancel the authorization of

the petitioner on the ground that husband of the

petitioner is a Government employee. Thereafter, as per

G.O.Ms.No.12 dated 06.03.2012, the respondent No.2

had issued another show-cause notice dated

07.02.2017 on the ground that the family members of

the employees working in Girijana Cooperative

Corporation are also not entitled for any dealership. In

response to the same, the petitioner has submitted her

detailed explanation dated 14.02.2017 to the

respondent No.2 and stated that her husband has been ::6::

SK, J WP_8113_ 2017

employed in the Girijana Cooperative Corporation since

1987 and on contrary to the explanation given by the

petitioner, the respondent No.2 had directly issued the

impugned order dated 27.02.2017 and cancelled the

authorization without providing any opportunity, on

the ground that husband of the petitioner is a

Government employee.

8. Admittedly, the petitioner is appointed as Fair

Price Shop Dealer in the year, 1993 and at the time of

appointment, G.O.Ms.No.12, Consumer Affairs, Food

and Civil Supplies (CS.I) Department, dated 06.03.2012

not in existence, as such, the respondents did not take

into account the conditions stipulated in the said

Government Order for cancellation of authorization of

the petitioner on the ground that the husband of the

petitioner is a Government employee.

::7::

SK, J WP_8113_ 2017

9. A similar issue is considered by this Court in

J.Prameela V. District Collector, Adilabad District 1

and the relevant paragraphs of the aforementioned

Judgement are read as follows:

"8.But, at the same time, the State Government does not seem to have taken a decision to completely debar close relatives of Government servants from being appointed as fair-price shop dealers. If really the State Government intended to prevent close relatives of Government servants to be appointed as fair-price shop dealers, there was no necessity for the Government to couch the instructions in the manner in which it has, as noticed supra. A simple and straightforward sentence such as ";close relatives of Government employees cannot be appointed as fair- price shop dealers": would have conveyed the notion clearly. But, instead, the State Government preferred to qualify their statement by using 'specially those working in Civil Supplies Department, Revenue Department or the Civil Supplies Corporation or the Village Administrative Officer of the Village', shall not be appointed as a fair-price shop dealer. This later part of the clause in fact, holds the key for understanding the contours of the policy which the Government contemplated for not appointing close relatives of the Government employees. It is discernible clearly that, the Government wanted to ensure that, close relatives of those who are working in Civil Supplies Department, Revenue Department and the Civil Supplies Corporation or the Village Administrative Officer of the Village concerned shall not be appointed. Perhaps, the close relatives of Government employees, other than the above referred categories, are not intended to be prevented from being appointed."

9. xxx

10. xxx

2012 (5) ALT 669 ::8::

SK, J WP_8113_ 2017

"11. Therefore, the fact that, the writ petitioner's husband is employed as a teacher with the Zilla Parishad High School cannot be treated as an absolute bar for her selection or bar for her appointment as a fair-price shop dealer. By using the expression ";Specially"; in Clause 12(3) of the guidelines, the bar contemplated is not an absolute one but is only a preferable one. As the writ petitioner was selected at the regular selections, it is obvious that, she has been picked up as she is the most meritorious and deserving. Assuming that, she is the only one candidate who had applied for dealership, even then, her appointment as a fair-price shop dealer made on 05.08.2005 should not have been interdicted at all subsequently thereto. Above all, the writ petitioner claimed to be a member belonging to schedule tribe. The State Government on a top priority basis is endeavoring its very best to improve upon the lot of scheduled tribes. It, therefore, stands to reason that the appointment of the writ petitioner as a fair-price shop dealer at Utnoor should not be interdicted."

10. The above Judgment is squarely apply to the

instant case as the husband of the petitioner is also

working in the Girijana Cooperative Corporation. In

view of the same, the respondents cannot cancel the

authorization of the petitioner as Fair Price Shop

Dealer on the ground that the petitioner's husband is

working in the Girijana Cooperative Corporation. The

petitioner has appointed in the year, 1993 as per rules

as on that date and the respondents cannot taking into

account of G.O.Ms.No.12, Consumer Affairs, Food and ::9::

SK, J WP_8113_ 2017

Civil Supplies (CS.I) Department, dated 06.03.2012,

which is prospective in nature. In view of the same, the

impugned orders are liable to be set aside as the same

are arbitrary and illegal.

11. In view of the above findings, the writ

petition is allowed, by setting aside the impugned

proceedings in Rc.No.D/3666/2015 dated 27.02.2017

passed by the respondent No.2-Revenue Divisional

Officer and directing the respondent No.2 to restore the

authorization of the petitioner's Fair Price Shop

Dealership for the Fair Price Shop No.35028, Sarvaram

Village, Sujatha Nagar of Bhadradri Kothagudem

District. There shall be no order as to costs.

12. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall

stand closed.

_______________________ JUSTICE K.SARATH Date:09.09.2024