Dismissed

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

Telangana HC13 Mar 2014WP/28551/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a writ petition challenging the termination of the petitioner's fair price shop authorization due to alleged misutilization of food for work programme rice. The court found no procedural impropriety and noted the petitioner had explained the usage of rice but failed to return it or pay the value.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Battu Shekar Vs The District Collector (C.S.) — Telangana HC (2014) — LawSathi Research

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶2

Writ Petition No.28551 of 2009

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶5

The Tahsildar, Malyal submitted a report stating that 200 quintals of rice meant for ‘food for work programme’ for construction of social welfare hostel in Malyal village was sanctioned and allotted to the petitioner, who is a fair price shop dealer and he misutilised the said rice. The Tahsildar stated that on 09-08-2005 he along with Food Inspector visited Shop No.2303 and found 200 quintals of rice allotted to the dealer meant for ‘food for work programme’ was not available in the shop and there are other violations in running the shop and requested to take action against the petitioner. Based on the same, the petitioner was issued a show-cause notice on 17-08-2005 and he submitted his explanation on 05-09-2005. The following allegations were levelled against the petitioner and his authorisation was suspended temporarily.

¶6

“1. He has diverted 200 quintals meant for food for work programme to the black market.

¶7

2. He has not displayed the Board in the Fair Price shop.

¶8

3. He has not displayed the Price Board in the shop.

¶9

4. He has not maintained public distribution stock register and distribution register.

¶10

5. He has violated the conditions of Public Distribution System.”

¶11

The explanation submitted by the petitioner was that the said rice was not diverted into black market and the same was utilized for the marriage of his relatives and also for his personal consumption. The personal hearing was conducted on 08-08-2007. The Executive Engineer, Social Welfare Department, Karimnagar, vide his order dated 31-01-2004 informed that construction of scheduled caste girls Hostel

¶12

was sanctioned in Malyal village under food for work programme and 200 quintals of rice was allotted to the petitioner. In view of the same, since the petitioner himself stated in his explanation dated 05-09-2005 that he utilized the rice for personal consumption and he did not take steps for return of the rice nor paid the value of the rice to the Government, but on 03-04-2007 he gave a D.D. for Rs.1,88,000/-, the authorisation of the petitioner was terminated by order dated 17-082007. Against the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the 1^st respondent, who dismissed the appeal on 26-06-2009. The revision preferred by the petitioner before the District Collector was also dismissed on 28-11-2009.

¶13

The petitioner before the 3^rd respondent stated that he utilized 200 quintals of rice for his personal consumption whereas before the revisional authority he stated that he sold the same after intimation to the Tahsildar as the rice was perishing. He utilized the rice for personal consumption whereas he remitted the value on 23-04-2007. The rice was meant for construction of Social Welfare Hostel under food for work programme. The authorities have considered the explanation submitted by the petitioner and gave opportunity to him at the time of personal hearing. There is no procedural impropriety committed by the respondents while passing the impugned orders.

¶14

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

¶15

_____________ A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J

¶16

Date: 13-03-2014 Prv

¶17

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶18

Writ Petition No.18723 of 2005

¶19

Dated 13-03-2014

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Badise Arjuna Rao Vs The District Collector (Cs)

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