Telangana High Court
K.Raji Reddy, vs State Government Of Telangana, on 27 February, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
WRIT PETITION NO.6901 OF 2024
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring
the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing proceedings No.1/324/2019
dt. .04.2019 cancelling the dealership of the petitioner as per
G.O.Ms.No.4, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS.I)
Department, dt.19.02.2011 in so far as it relates to relinquishment of
Fair Price Shop of a dealer who got elected as Sarpanch and for a
declaration that the G.O.Ms.No.20, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil
Supplies (CS.I-CCS) Department, dt.06.09.2018 replacing G.O.Ms.No.4
dt.19.02.2011, as contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Somnath Rath Vs. Bikram K. Arukh and others1
and is thus illegal and unsustainable and consequently to direct the 2nd
respondent to restore the Fair Price Shop Dealership of the petitioner
and to pass such other order or orders.
(1999) 9 SCC 538
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition are
that the petitioner was appointed as a Fair Price Shop Dealer of Doma
Village of Vikarabad Mandal in respect of Shop No.4106032. In
January, 2019, the petitioner was elected to the post of Sarpanch of
Doma Village for a period of 5 years. It is submitted that when the Gram
Panchayat elections were declared and the petitioner enquired about his
eligibility to contest, the 2nd respondent and other Government
authorities told him that as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, he is entitled to contest the election to the post of Sarpanch while
continuing as Fair Price Shop Dealer. Accordingly, the petitioner
participated in the elections and won the election and became the
Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent has
issued a notice dt.25.02.2019 to the petitioner to show cause as to why
his Fair Price Shop Dealership should not be cancelled for the reason
that he has not given any undertaking for relinquishing his Fair Price
Shop Dealership after getting elected as Sarpanch, as required under
G.O.Ms.No.4 dt.19.02.2011 and thereafter, vide order dt. .04.2019, the
2nd respondent cancelled his dealership by invoking the provisions of
Clause 17(C) of the Telangana State Public Distribution System
(Control) Order, 2016. It is submitted that after completion of his tenure
as Sarpanch on 02.02.2024, the petitioner made a representation
dt.08.08.2024 to restore his dealership. He also submitted a
representation dt.08.08.2021 to the Tahsildar informing him that he is
entitled to get back his dealership after completion of his term as
Sarpanch. It is submitted that since the petitioner's representation was
not considered and his dealership has not been restored, he has filed the
present Writ Petition challenging the impugned cancellation order dt.
.04.2019.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while vehemently reiterating
the contentions raised in the Writ Petition, has placed reliance upon the
judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Cheekati
Parasuram Naidu Vs. Mariserla Venkatarami Naidu and another2
in support of his contention that being a Fair Price Shop dealership is
not a disqualification for contesting the elections. Further, he also
submitted that the post of Sarpanch is not an office of profit and
therefore, it cannot be considered as an impediment for his continuation
as a Fair Price Shop Dealer.
AIR 1985 AP 169
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that in the
show-cause notice given to the petitioner, the only allegation was that
the petitioner has failed to give an undertaking that he would relinquish
his Fair Price Shop Dealership if he is elected to the post of Sarpanch,
but in the final order of cancellation, it was stated that he was elected to
the post of Sarpanch and therefore, he is not eligible to continue as
Dealer of the Fair Shop and since the allegation and the finding are at
variance with each other, the finding is liable to be set aside.
5. Learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, on the other
hand, relied upon the averments made in the counter affidavit and also
relied on Guidelines 12(i) and 12(ii) of G.O.Ms.No.4 dt.19.02.2011;
Guidelines 14.1 and 14.2 of G.O.Ms.No.20 dt.06.09.2018 and the
provisions of Clause 17(C) of the Telangana State Public Distribution
System (Control) Order, 2016 in support of his contentions.
6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record,
this Court finds that Clause 17(C) of the Telangana State Public
Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 governs the issue. For the
sake of convenience and ready reference, Clause 17(C) of the Telangana
State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 is reproduced
hereunder:
"Taking Part in Political Activities:
No fair price shop dealer/nominated retailer/hawker shall take
part in any political activity or indirectly in any general/Municipal/
Panchayat Raj elections, hampering the Public Distribution system
and the authorization granted to him/her under the order shall be
cancelled if he/she is found involved in such political activity
canvassing."
Thus, any person who is appointed/nominated as fair price shop
dealer shall not take part in political activities and his/her
authorization is liable to be cancelled if he/she is found involved
in such political activity.
7. Further, this Court finds that G.O.Ms.No.20, Consumer Affairs,
Food and Civil Supplies (CS.I-CCS) Department, dt.06.09.2018
contains the Guidelines for appointment of Fair Price Shop Dealers.
Guideline No.14.1 thereof prescribes that all individuals holding any
Public Office like Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, President of Mandal
Parishad, Members of Mandal Parishad Territorial Constituency
(MPTC), Chairman of Zilla Parishad, Presidents of Co-operative
Societies, Councilors or Chairman of Municipality / Members of Zilla
Parishad Territorial Constituency (ZPTC) etc., or holding any office of
profit irrespective of the reservation shall not be eligible for appointment
or continuation as an authorized dealer of a fair price shop. It is noticed
that the petitioner has not challenged this particular Guideline of
G.O.Ms.No.20 dt.06.09.2018, but has challenged the G.O. as a whole.
As seen from the authorization issued to the petitioner, the petitioner is
required to abide by the conditions thereunder and Clause 14 of the
authorization mentions that the holder of this authorization shall not
contravene the provisions of the Telangana Public Distribution System
(Control) Order, 2016 or violate any conditions of the authorization
issued under the order or any other order relating to foodstuffs, sugar or
edible oils or edible oilseeds or petroleum products issued under the
Essential Commodities Act, 1955 or any instructions, directions or
orders issued under any such provisions. Under the Control Order
Clause 17(C) as extracted above, the dealer shall not participate in any
political activity. As per the Guidelines XII (i) and (ii) issued under
G.O.Ms.No.32 dt.03.12.2018, all individuals holding any Public Office
like Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, President of Mandal Praja Parishad,
Chairman of Zilla Praja Parishad, Presidents of Co-operative Societies,
Councillors or Chairman of Municipality / Members of Zilla Parishad
Territorial Constituency (ZPTC) etc., or holding any office of profit
irrespective of the reservation shall not be eligible and it is for this
reason that every fair price shop dealer shall give an undertaking to the
appointing authority concerned that he / she shall relinquish the fair
price shop dealership if he / she is elected to any public office. Under
G.O.Ms.No.20 dt.06.09.2018, similar Clause has been incorporated.
8. Having accepted the conditions for appointment as an authorized
dealer, the petitioner cannot take contrary stand to suit his purpose. The
petitioner also has not challenged the cancellation order immediately
thereafter, but has chosen to challenge the order after completion of his
term as a Sarpanch. G.O.Ms.No.4 dt.19.02.2011 was replaced by
G.O.Ms.No.20 dt.06.09.2018. Therefore, the petitioner is governed by
the Guidelines issued at the time of his appointment and the petitioner,
having accepted the terms and conditions of the appointment, cannot
choose to challenge the very same conditions after cancellation of his
authorization. For the contention of the petitioner that the post of
Sarpanch is not an office of profit and therefore, is not covered by the
said Guidelines, this Court finds that the relevant Clause refer to not
only office of profit, but also refers to public office such as the post of
Sarpanch of a Gram Panchayat and other public offices. Therefore, there
are two categories of positions which are disqualifications for being
appointed or also for continuation as a fair price shop dealer.
9. In view thereof, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel
for the petitioner in the case of Somnath Rath Vs. Bikram K. Arukh
and others (1 supra) and in the case of Cheekati Parasuram Naidu
Vs. Mariserla Venkatarami Naidu and another (2 supra) are not
applicable to the facts of the case before this Court as they related to
eligibility of the Fair Price Shop Dealer to contest the election and not as
to whether a Fair Price Shop Dealer can continue as such after being
elected as a Sarpanch. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in
this Writ Petition.
10. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
11. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall
also stand dismissed.
___________________________
JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
Date: 27.02.2025
Svv
