Partly allowed

Sathammatalli Mahilasakthi Sangam ( Dwcra ) v. The Government of A.P.

Telangana HC13 Mar 2014WP/10860/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two connected writ petitions, the High Court dismissed the petition challenging the restoration of a fair price shop authorisation to the original dealer after it was cancelled. The Court ruled that while reasoned orders are necessary, the temporary dealer lacked locus standi to attack the restoration since the revisionary decision was in favour of the original dealer. The Court quashed the pet

What did the court decide?

W.P.No.10860 of 2010 dismissed; W.P.No.16346 of 2010 allowed; miscellaneous petitions closed; no order as to costs.

Sathammatalli Mahilasakthi Sangam ( Dwcra… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶2

W.P.NO.10860 & 16346 of 2010

¶3

COMMON ORDER:-

¶4

These two writ petitions are disposed of by this common order in view of the common facts involved in the two writ petitions. 02. W.P.No.10860 of 2010 was filed challenging the order of the 2^nd Respondent and the consequential order passed by the 3^rd Respondent in favour of the 4^th Respondent. W.P.No.16346 of 2010 was filed by the 4^th Respondent in W.P.No.10860 of 2010 challenging the authorisation issued in favour of the writ petitioner in the said writ petition.

¶5

03. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as arrayed in W.P.No.10860 of 2010.

¶6

04. The 3^rd Respondent inspected the 4^th Respondent’s fair price shop No.34 of Vetlapalem Village, Samalkota on 12-04-2005 and found stock variation in ISL rice to a tune of Q.89.50 kgs. On the said report, the 2^nd Respondent issued a show cause notice to the 4^th Respondent calling for explanation why penalty should not be imposed under Clause 17(c) of APSPDS Control Order 2001. The 4^th Respondent submitted coupons for Q.89.50 kgs before the 2^nd Respondent, which was got verified by the MPDO, Smalkot and found coupons relating to ISL rice issued by the Panchayat Secretary, Vetlapalem are genuine. The 2^nd Respondent in his report stated that out of Q.330.00 of ISL Rice allotted to the 4^th Respondent’s shop, the 4^th Respondent distributed Q.183.00 on coupons and another quantity of Q.55.50 was handed over to Shop No.29 of Vetlapalem by the MSO, Samalkota Mandal. Further, the 2^nd

¶7

Respondent stated that remaining 32 quintals of ISL rice kept in the 4^th Respondent’s shop for a long time was spoiled. The 2^nd Respondent also stated that the Inspecting Officer (MSO) had not taken into account the said Q.32.00 and the quantity spoiled. The 2^nd Respondent in his above report admitted that Q.298.00 of ISL rice was accounted for, leaving the balance of Q.32.00 kgs which was spoiled due to the negligence of the 4^th Respondent. For this lapse, the authorisation of the 4^th Respondent for fair price shop No.34 of Vetlapalem village was cancelled by the 2^nd Respondent in his proceedings No.G/1138/2005, dated 12-10-2005.

¶8

05. Against the said cancellation order, the 4^th Respondent preferred an appeal under Clause 20 of APSPDS Order before the Joint Collector, East Godavari District. The Joint Collector upon hearing the case, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the orders of the 2^nd Respondent, by order dated 16-02-2008. Aggrieved by the same, the 4^th Respondent preferred a revision petition before the 1^st Respondent. The 1^st Respondent after hearing the 4^th Respondent and perusing the record, noted that the 2^nd Respondent has admitted that the MSO, Kakinada Rural has not taken into account of Q.32.00 spoiled ISL rice at the time of his inspection and noting the same that there was no shortage of ISL Rice in 4^th Respondent’s shop and Q.32.00 of rice stated to have been spoiled was only due to allotment to the 4^th Respondent’s shop long back and kept the rice in the 4^th Respondent’s shop for a long time might have resulted in gradual damage. The 1^st Respondent also observed that the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 failed to initiate appropriate action under relevant law and the 2^nd Respondent treated the long storage, spoil of rice attracts disciplinary case only. In

¶9

the circumstances, the 2^nd Respondent was directed to give an opportunity to the 4^th Respondent for hearing in person and dispose the case afresh and accordingly remanded the case to the 2^nd Respondent by an order dated 10-03-2009. After remand, the 2^nd Respondent passed an order in D.Dis.G/1138/05, dated 03-03-2010 by narrating the history of the case and ultimately held as follows:-

¶10

“In view of the above circumstances, in consideration of the request of the Smt Siriki Nageswari, President, Mamatha M.S.S.,the F.P.Shop No.34 is hereby restored to Mamatha Mahila Sakti Sangam, Vetlapalem Village of Samalkota Mandal and the dealer Sathemmatalli MSS appointed on temporary basis is hereby removed from the dealership and authorisation granted to Sathemmatalli MSS is hereby cancelled.”

¶11

06. The Petitioner herein was appointed temporarily in February2005 pending proceedings against the 4^th Respondent. After appointment of the Petitioner as temporary dealer in February-2005, the authorisation was issued and the said authorisation has been continued from time to time and it is in vogue till 31-03-2015. The said authorisation was being renewed for every two years. When the 2^nd Respondent passed an order on 03-03-2010 in favour of the 4^th Respondent, the temporary dealer who is the Petitioner herein, filed W.P.No.10860 of 2010 and this court by an order dated 05-05-2010 directed the authorities to continue the Petitioner as a fair price shop dealer for shop No.34, Vetlapalem Village, Samalkot Mandal pending further orders. Though the authorisation which was in force in 2010 in favour of the Petitioner expired, it was renewed due to the above interim order. In those circumstances, the 4^th Respondent challenged the said renewal of authorisation made on 12-06-2009 in favour of the Petitioner herein by filing W.P.No.16346 of 2010. That is how, these two writ petitions were filed and coming up for hearing. These two writ

¶12

petitions are being disposed of, at the stage of vacate petition filed by the 4^th Respondent in W.P.No.10860 of 2010, with the consent of the parties.

¶13

07. The learned counsel for the Petitioner vehemently contended that the order of the 2^nd Respondent dated 03-03-2010 does not contain any reasons even though he was directed by the revisional authority1^st Respondent by order dated 10-03-2009 to give an opportunity to the Petitioner therein (4^th Respondent herein) for hearing in person and dispose of the case afresh and accordingly remanded the matter to him. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that simply on the basis of the representation of the 4^th Respondent, he restored the fair price shop without giving reasons even though he was directed to dispose of the case afresh. The learned counsel for the Petitioner relied upon a decisions reported in Secretary and Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall Vs. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity and others (^[1] ) and K.Santha Kumar Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalle, Chittoor District and others (^[2] ) for the proposition that every administrative, quasi-judicial or judicial order must be supported by reasons recorded in it. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same, it becomes lifeless. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. He challenged the order of the 2^nd Respondent as it did not contain any reasons for restoration of fair price shop dealership in favour of the 4^th Respondent.

¶14

08. There is no quarrel with the proposition laid down in the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. It is well settled that every order affecting the rights of the parties must be supported by reasons. Here, the writ Petitioner was not a party before

¶15

the 2^nd Respondent nor before the Joint Collector nor before the Revisional authority. The only party who was aggrieved was the 4^th Respondent who filed a revision before the 1^st Respondent. The revision petition of the 4^th Respondent was allowed by the 1^st Respondent on 10-03-2009 and the 2^nd Respondent was directed to give an opportunity to the Petitioner ( 4^th Respondent herein) for hearing in person and dispose of the case afresh. Accordingly, the said opportunity was given to the 4^th Respondent by the 2^nd Respondent and an order was passed in favour of the 4^th Respondent. The 4^th Respondent who was affected party accepted the said order as the said order was in his favour. If the Petitioner in the present writ petition has any grievance, he ought to have filed a revision before the 1^st Respondent. He did not do so, but challenged the order in this writ petition. Though the writ petitioner is h a v i n g locus standi as held by this Court in M.Vanaja Vs.B.Balaseshanna and others (^[3] ) and K.Sunitha Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool (^[4] ) , to challenge the said order, it is not open to him to say that the order of the 2^nd Respondent is vitiated due to lack of reasons. The party-appellant before the 2^nd Respondent succeeded in the appeal. Further, the order of the 2^nd Respondent is in consonance with the first proviso to Clause. 5(7) of AP State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008, which says that when a conviction in an appeal or revision is set aside, the appointing authority may, on application made by the person whose authorisation was cancelled, reissue the authorisation to such person. In that view of the matter, it cannot be held that the order of the 2^nd Respondent is illegal. The Petitioner is only a temporary dealer

¶16

pending disciplinary proceedings against the 4^th Respondent. The revision of the 4^th Respondent was allowed and the matter was remanded to the 2^nd Respondent. The 2^nd Respondent took the facts into consideration and reissued the authorisation as per the proviso cited above.

¶17

Therefore, W.P.No.10860 of 2010 is dismissed. W.P.No.16346 of 2010 is allowed. In the circumstances there shall be no order as to costs in both the writ petitions. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in both the writ petitions shall stand closed.

¶18

_____________________________ A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO,J

¶19

13-03-2014 TSNR

¶20

[1] (2010) 3 SCC 732 [2] 2010(3) ALD 198 [3] 2007(4) ALD 388 (F.B) [4] 2012(3) ALD 665

Sathammatalli Mahilasakthi Sangam ( Dwcra ) v. The Government of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sathammatalli Mahilasakthi Sangam ( Dwcra ) v. The Government of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Katakam Bakkaiah Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Sunchu Yadagiri Vs Warangal Municipal Corporation,Warangal District

V. Giridhar Reddy Vs The District Collector

M/s. Sheel Security Products, Rep. by its Proprietor Vs The Controller, Legal Metrology, Gandhi Nagar

Badise Arjuna Rao Vs The District Collector (Cs)

Battu Shekar Vs The District Collector (C.S.)