Dismissed

Badise Arjuna Rao v. The District Collector (Cs)

Telangana HC13 Mar 2014WP/15031/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition by a cancelled Fair Price Shop dealer challenging an order dismissing his appeal against revocation of authorization due to stock irregularities and high rates. The court held that a personal hearing was not an essential principle if sufficient opportunity to defend was given and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Badise Arjuna Rao Vs The District… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶2

Writ Petition No.15031 of 2009

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the respondents.

¶5

The petitioner is a Fair Price shop dealer of Mahadevapuram village, Madhira Mandal, Khammam District. The Deputy Tahsildar in pursuance of complaints received from cardholders, inspected the said shop and found the following irregularities :-

¶6

“1. The physical verification of stock has shown a shortage of 2.94 qtls of rice.

¶7

2. The appellant was distributing essential commodities at higher rates.

¶8

3. The appellant was not distributing essential commodities to cardholders every month.

¶9

4. The appellant took the coupons from illiterate cardholders without their knowledge.

¶10

5. The appellant made fictitious entries in the distribution register for the month of 2/2007 with regard to cardholders namely J.China Narayana, N.Babu Maraiah and G.Krishna.”

¶11

A show-cause notice was issued to him on 04-05-2007 and the petitioner submitted his explanation on 14-05-2007. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam, considered each charge and by order, dated 07-12-2007, ordered for recovery of differential amount of Rs.3731/- and cancelled the authorisation. Against the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the 2^nd respondent who considered the appeal and passed an elaborate order while dismissing the appeal on 04-08-2008, which reads as follows:-

¶12

“…………

¶13

The only ground that was specific and deserves examination is that, the Dy.Tahsildar(CS) did not under-took physical verification of stocks in the presence of mediators. The Deputy Tahsildar(CS) Madhira, in pursuance of complaints against the Appellant, inspected the Fair Price Shop run by the Appellant and found certain grave irregularities in distribution of rice. The Deputy Tahsildar conducted physical verification in the presence of mediators found a shortage of 2.94 qtls of rice. The Appellant did not offer valid reason for the shortage and admitted the shortage. The shortage is very abnormal. The total quantity of rice lifted by the Appellant including the O.B. as on 01.03.2007 was 64.98 qtls and the shortage allowed @ 1.5% is 97 kgs only, whereas the shortage was 2.94 qtls. Even the 1.5% shortage is not permissible but incase the shortage is not beyond 1.5% no prosecution shall be launched against the Fair Price Shop dealer and departmental action can be initiated in respect of shortages below 1.5%. The Appellant admitted the shortage in the presence of mediator and a copy of the mediator report was given to the appellant.

¶14

Another two grave charges are that the Appellant was in possession of coupons from illiterate cardholders without their knowledge of cardholders and specific names of cardholders were given in the respondents order. The Appellant did not offer any explanation to the charges that he was selling Essential Commodities at higher rates and not distributing Essential Commodities throughout the month. The Appellant was silent on these charges and offered no explanation. Evidently the Appellant had no explanation.

¶15

Beyond any reasonable doubt all the charges levelled against the Appellant are proved and I see no reason to interfere with the orders of the Respondent i.e., Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam and hence the Appeal is hereby dismissed under clause 20(1)(i) of the A.P.State Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2001.”

¶16

Against the said order, the petitioner preferred a revision to the 1^st respondent and the 1^st respondent confirmed the order of the appellate authority by order dated 23-04-2009. Challenging the same, the present writ petition was filed.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 3^rd respondent without giving an opportunity of personal hearing passed the order of cancellation of authorisation on 07-12-2007 based on the explanation submitted by the petitioner.

¶18

But, the opportunity of personal hearing is not one of the essential principles of natural justice and if sufficient opportunity is given to the aggrieved party to put forth his defence it is sufficient. In the instant case, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and he submitted his explanation. As many as six charges were levelled against the petitioner and all the charges were held proved. The appellate authority considered the charges in proper perspective and confirmed the order of cancellation of authorization by order dated 04-08-2008 and the revision was also dismissed.

¶19

In the circumstances, I do not see any reason to interfere with the said orders passed by the respondents.

¶20

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶21

___________ A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J

¶22

Date: 13-03-2014 Prv

¶23

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶24

Writ Petition No.15031 of 2009

¶25

Dated 13-03-2014

Badise Arjuna Rao v. The District Collector (Cs)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Badise Arjuna Rao v. The District Collector (Cs)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

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

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

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