Allowed

Vendra Ganesh Mrutyunjaya Venkata Ramakrishnarao v. The Joint Collector

Telangana HC8 Jul 2011WP/18114/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the recovery order imposing liability on a Panchayat Secretary under a clause designated for fair price shop dealers. The court held that the provision only applied to dealers, rendering the recovery from the petitioner without jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed; the order dated 08.01.2005 and the judgment dated 13.12.2006 are set aside.

Vendra Ganesh Mrutyunjaya Venkata… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.18114 of 2007

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner is the Panchayat Secretary, Gutala Village, Polavaram Mandal, West Godavari District. Being aggrieved by the order dated 08.01.2005 passed by the Joint Collector, West Godavari, directing recovery of a sum of Rs.1,12,230/- from him under Clause 17 (c) of the A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 (for short ‘Control Order of 2001’), the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, West Godavari, in C.M.A.No.28 of 2005. By judgment dated 13.12.2006, the appellate Court dismissed the petitioner’s appeal. Hence, this writ petition.

¶5

2. This Court, by order dated 28.08.2007, granted interim suspension of the orders passed by the Joint Collector, West Godavari, and the appellate Court. The interim suspension was made absolute on 23.07.2009.

¶6

3. The case arose out of the proceedings initiated against the third respondent herein, the fair price shop dealer of Gutala Village, and others, including the petitioner, under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for the alleged mis-utilisation of 29 metric tonnes of rice allotted under the ‘Food For Work’ (F.F.W) programme. The impugned order dated 08.01.2005 passed by the Joint Collector, West Godavari, reflects that the dealer, the third respondent herein, confessed that the stocks were drawn from her by the Panchayat Secretary, the petitioner herein, along with the Sarpanch of the village and the contractor, respondents 4 & 5 herein. However, the Joint Collector, West Godavari, came to the conclusion that the petitioner alone was responsible for the delivery of the subject rice to the contractor, the 5^th respondent herein, and therefore presumed that the entire stock was mis-appropriated by him in connivance with the others. He accordingly directed recovery of the entire value of the 29 metric tonnes of

¶7

F.F.W rice i.e., Rs.1,12,230/- from the petitioner, the Panchayat Secretary of Gutala village, under Clause 17(c) of the Control Order of 2001.

¶8

4. In appeal, the learned District Judge, West Godavari, having lifted verbatim a paragraph from the order dated 08.01.2005 passed by the Joint Collector, West Godavari, in paragraph 18 of his judgment concurred with the conclusions reached by the said authority and dismissed the same.

¶9

5. Pertinent to note, neither of the authorities below noticed the import of the fact that recovery sought to be effected from the petitioner was under Clause 17 (c) of the Control Order of 2001.

¶10

Clause 17 (c) of the Control Order of 2001 reads as under:

¶11

“Section 17(a)…………

¶12

(b)…………

¶13

(c) if any fair price shop dealer diverts stock either wholly or partly, he/she shall be liable to pay as penalty three times the difference between the market rate and Public Distribution System rate of the commodity thus diverted, besides cancellation of authorisation given by the R.D.O/sub-collector.”

¶14

6. A plain reading of the above clause demonstrates that it is only the dealer who could be made liable to pay a penalty thereunder. The subject provision could not have been used to make the Panchayat Secretary liable. The order passed by the Joint Collector, West Godavari, directing recovery, taking recourse to the above Clause is therefore without jurisdiction. The appellate authority failed to consider this aspect of the matter and blindly confirmed the order of the Joint Collector, West Godavari. The proceedings initiated against the petitioner on the basis of this Clause must therefore fail.

¶15

7. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed setting aside the order dated 08.01.2005 passed by the Joint Collector, West Godavari, and the judgment dated 13.12.2006 in C.M.A.No.28 of 2005 on the file of the learned District Judge, West Godavari, confirming the same. No order as to costs.

¶16

08.07.2011 VJL

¶17

JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

Vendra Ganesh Mrutyunjaya Venkata Ramakrishnarao v. The Joint Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vendra Ganesh Mrutyunjaya Venkata Ramakrishnarao v. The Joint Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. M.Mahalakshmi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mohammad Sadiq Vs The Commissioenr

Islamia Education Society Vs S.G. Haqani

Golla Lokeswaramma Vs The District Collector

Darsi Gram Panchayat Vs The Government of a.P., Rep. by its Principal

Arji Shankar rao, Vs Divisional Engineer-Operation, ZoneI