A.P. Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2001 -the Essential Commodities Act and the A.P. State Public Distribution (Control) Order, 2008 - Dealer licence was restored and fine was paid - still it is hold good - pending revision - it is directed to restore the supply of commodities to the dealer for doing business in fair price shop - writ petition allowed = Smt. M. Yasodamma.... Petitioner The Government of A.P., Consumer Affairs (Civil Supplies) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and 5 others.... Respondents = published in/ Cited in / Reported in judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=10620


A.P. Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2001 -the Essential Commodities Act and the A.P. State Public Distribution (Control) Order, 2008 - Dealer licence was restored and fine was paid - still it is hold good - pending revision - it is directed to restore the supply of commodities to the dealer for doing business in fair price shop - writ petition allowed = 
This writ petition is filed for declaring the orders of the 1st respondent
passed in Government Memo No.813/CS-I.1/2013, dated 04-04-2013 whereby and     
whereunder the revision petition was allowed and granted stay of operation of
the orders passed by the District Collector, Chittoor till disposal of the case,
as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of
the Essential Commodities Act and the A.P. State Public Distribution (Control)
Order, 2008 and for setting aside the same and for a consequential direction to
the respondents not to interfere with the functioning of the fair price shop by
the petitioner till her authorization is subsisting. =

the petitioner filed an appeal before the 3rd
respondent-Joint Collector, Chittoor, who is Appellate Authority as contemplated
under clause 20 (2) (i) of the Control Order, 2008 and the same was allowed by
order dated 31-07-2012.  Thereafter, the said orders were implemented and the
petitioner was reinstated as a fair price shop dealer as per the proceedings of
the 3rd respondent-Joint Collector and that on payment of the amount towards
release of the stocks, stocks were released in favour of the petitioner and she
has been distributing the stocks from 01-10-2012 onwards.  
 In the present case, the grievance of the petitioner is that because of
the stay order passed by the 1st respondent, the petitioner is unable to supply
the commodities.  
The 1st respondent by the impugned memo only stayed the order  
passed by the 2nd respondent by which the revision petition filed by the 6th
respondent was dismissed.  Even if the order passed by the 2nd respondent is
stayed by the 1st respondent through the impugned memo, it does not prohibit
supply of stocks to the petitioner so long as the authorisation of the
petitioner is subsisting.  It does not disentitle the petitioner for receiving
essential commodities and supplying the same to the card holders as she
succeeded in the revision before the District Collector.  In such scenario, the
respondents 4 and 5 can be directed to supply the stocks to the petitioner,
having due regard to the fact that the appeal filed by the petitioner is allowed
restoring her authorisation and also the fact that the revision petition filed
by the 6th respondent is dismissed by the 2nd respondent.
        Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the 1st respondent
is directed to dispose of the revision petition filed by the 6th respondent.
Till disposal of the said revision, the respondents 4 and 5 are directed to
supply the stocks to the petitioner so long as the authorization of the
petitioner is valid and subsisting. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed
of. No costs.

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY          

Writ Petition No.21579 of 2013

10-12-2013

Smt. M. Yasodamma.... Petitioner

The Government of A.P., Consumer Affairs (Civil Supplies) Department,
Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and 5 others.... Respondents

Counsel for petitioner: Sri B.Sudhakar Reddy and Neeraja Reddy,

Counsel for respondents: G.P. for Civil Supplies

<Gist:

>Head Note:

?Cases referred:
2007 (4) ALD 388

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY        
Writ Petition No.21579 of 2013

Date:  10-12-2013

ORDER:

        This writ petition is filed for declaring the orders of the 1st respondent
passed in Government Memo No.813/CS-I.1/2013, dated 04-04-2013 whereby and     
whereunder the revision petition was allowed and granted stay of operation of
the orders passed by the District Collector, Chittoor till disposal of the case,
as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of
the Essential Commodities Act and the A.P. State Public Distribution (Control)
Order, 2008 and for setting aside the same and for a consequential direction to
the respondents not to interfere with the functioning of the fair price shop by
the petitioner till her authorization is subsisting.
2.      The case of the petitioner is that she was issued fair price shop
authorisation under the provisions of A.P. Public Distribution System (Control)
Order 2001 for Shop No.58A, Yerrapalli, Ramasamudram Mandal in 2003 and since  
then she is supplying of stocks to the public without any complaint.
 An
inspection was conducted in the shop of the petitioner on 11-08-2010 and due to
some variations, her authorisation was suspended by issuing suspension-cum-show  
cause notice vide proceedings No.R.O.C.53/6094A/2010, dated 21-08-2010.
It is
stated that through the same proceedings, the 4th respondent framed charges and
directed the petitioner to submit her explanation for the charges pursuance to
which the petitioner submitted her explanation, but the 4th respondent-Revenue
Divisional Officer, Madanapalle without considering the said explanation,
cancelled the authorisation vide proceedings in D.Dis.No.A3/6094A/2010, dated
16-04-2011 against which, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 3rd
respondent-Joint Collector, Chittoor, who is Appellate Authority as contemplated
under clause 20 (2) (i) of the Control Order, 2008 and the same was allowed by
order dated 31-07-2012.  Thereafter, the said orders were implemented and the
petitioner was reinstated as a fair price shop dealer as per the proceedings of
the 3rd respondent-Joint Collector and that on payment of the amount towards
release of the stocks, stocks were released in favour of the petitioner and she
has been distributing the stocks from 01-10-2012 onwards.
Meanwhile, the 6th
respondent filed revision before the 2nd respondent-District Collector, Chittoor
against the orders dated 31-07-2012 wherein the 2nd respondent stayed the
operation of the order dated 31-07-2012 passed by the 3rd respondent-Joint
Collector and ultimately dismissed the revision filed by the 6th respondent vide
proceedings dated 02-03-2013.  
Challenging the said orders, the 6th respondent
filed revision before the 1st respondent under Clause 21 (ii) of the Control
Order, 2001 wherein the 1st respondent granted stay of operation of the order
dated 02-03-2013 passed by the 2nd respondent-District Collector, Chittoor,
through impugned memo dated 04-04-2013.  
Assailing the said Government memo, the present writ petition has been filed.
3.      Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
A.P. State Public
Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 was repealed by clause 25 of the
Control Order 2008, as such, the revision under clause 21 of the Control Order,
2001 is incompetent and not maintainable.  He also contends that before passing
the impugned order, no notice was issued to the petitioner as contemplated under
Clause 21 of the Control Order.  He also contends that that the 6th respondent
is not a card holder and has no locus standi to challenge the order passed by
the 2nd respondent.  He further contends that no second revision is maintainable
inasmuch as the 2nd respondent has already entertained the revision and
dismissed the same and that the 6th respondent simply stating that he is
representing the cardholders went on harassing the petitioner and also the 1st
respondent should not have entertained the revision at the instance of the 6th
respondent.  The 6th respondent having grudge against the petitioner went on
harassing the petitioner after filing petition one after the other at whose
instance the 1st respondent should not have passed orders. In support of his
contentions, he relied on M. Vanaja v. B. Balaseshanna and others1.
4.      Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies submits that
Clause 21 of the Control Order 2008 is amended vide G.O.Ms.No.11, Consumer  
Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS.I) Department, dated 25-01-2012, according
to which, sub-clauses (v) and (vi) are added after sub-clause (iv) of Clause 21
of the Control Order, 2008 and that as per such sub-clause (v) of Clause 21 of
the Control Order, 2008, the second revision is maintainable before the
Government.
5.      Learned counsel for the 6th respondent submits that he is a cardholder and
is an aggrieved person by the order passed by the 2nd respondent and as such, he
preferred revision before the Government.  He further submits that in the
earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner, the 6th respondent was shown as
party to the writ petition, as such, he cannot contend that the 6th respondent
has no locus standi.  He also contends that since serious irregularities
committed by the petitioner, the 6th respondent being cardholder has every right
to challenge the order passed by the authorities.  He further submits that for
passing interim order, no notice is necessary and that the Control Order
provides issuance of notice for final disposal of revision.  He further
contended that sub-clause (vi) of Clause 21 provides that pending disposal of
the revision petition, the Government may direct that the order under revision
shall not have effect until the same is disposed of. He also contends that
though the Control Order 2001 is repealed by Clause 25 of Control Order 2008,
that does not make the revision petition ineffective and mere quoting of wrong
provision does not defeat the right of the 6th respondent.
7.      As far as locus standi is concerned, the said issue need not be decided
herein because in the earlier occasion, when the 6th respondent filed revision
before the 2nd respondent, the same was entertained by the 2nd respondent
wherein the 2nd respondent passed interim order, which was questioned by the
writ petitioner in W.P.No.31231 of 2012.  The said writ petition was ultimately
was disposed of on 15-10-2012 directing the 2nd respondent to dispose of the
revision itself.  Since the writ petitioner has not assailed the said order in
the writ petition, now the writ petitioner cannot contend that the 6th
respondent has no locus standi having agreed with the order passed in the writ
petition, more so, the 6th respondent filed a copy of the ration card showing
that he is a card holder and a consumer of the writ petitioner being supplied
stocks by the petitioner, and thus, the contention that the 6th respondent has
no locus standi is totally unsustainable.
8.      In this case, admittedly, the revision was filed under Clause 21 (ii) of
the Control Order, 2001, which is repealed by Clause 25 of the Control Order,
2008, but, sub-clause (v) of Clause 21 of the Control Order, 2008, as amended by
G.O.Ms.No.11, dated 25-01-2012, provides for a revision petition against the
order passed by the 2nd respondent and clause 21 also provides issuance of
notice only in case of final orders to be passed in the revision.
Further, sub-
clause (vi) of Clause 21 of the Control Order, 2008 also provides the power of
granting interim relief pending disposal of the revision petition.  
In the
present case, the impugned memo shows that the revision petition filed by the
6th respondent is allowed and the orders passed by the 2nd respondent is stayed
till disposal of the case and such order is an interim measure, in which no
notice is required to be issued and the same can be issued only in case of
passing final orders as per clause 21 of the Control Order, 2008. 
No doubt, the
revision petition was filed under the repealed Control Order, 2001, but the
Control Order, 2008 provides second revision before the Government, as such, it
cannot be said that the revision is ineffective because of quoting wrong
provision of law.
Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that the revision is
maintainable before the 1st respondent against the order passed by the 2nd
respondent.
9.      In the present case, the grievance of the petitioner is that because of
the stay order passed by the 1st respondent, the petitioner is unable to supply
the commodities.  
The 1st respondent by the impugned memo only stayed the order  
passed by the 2nd respondent by which the revision petition filed by the 6th
respondent was dismissed.  Even if the order passed by the 2nd respondent is
stayed by the 1st respondent through the impugned memo, it does not prohibit
supply of stocks to the petitioner so long as the authorisation of the
petitioner is subsisting.  It does not disentitle the petitioner for receiving
essential commodities and supplying the same to the card holders as she
succeeded in the revision before the District Collector.  In such scenario, the
respondents 4 and 5 can be directed to supply the stocks to the petitioner,
having due regard to the fact that the appeal filed by the petitioner is allowed
restoring her authorisation and also the fact that the revision petition filed
by the 6th respondent is dismissed by the 2nd respondent.
        Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the 1st respondent
is directed to dispose of the revision petition filed by the 6th respondent.
Till disposal of the said revision, the respondents 4 and 5 are directed to
supply the stocks to the petitioner so long as the authorization of the
petitioner is valid and subsisting. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed
of. No costs.

        As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand
closed.
_____________________  
A. RAJASHEKER REDDY, J    
Date:  10-12-2013

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515