M SADASIVA SEKHAR Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR KURNOOL
LAWS(APH)-2003-3-160
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on
March 07,2003
M.SADASIVA SEKHAR
Appellant
VERSUS
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KURNOOL
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
RIDGE V. BALDWIN [REFERRED TO]M. VASUDEVAN PILLAI V. CITY COUNCIL OF SINGAPORE [REFERRED TO]
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN V. STATE THROUGH CBI,NEW DELHI [REFERRED TO]
AI MEHDAWI V. SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT [REFERRED TO]
RAMASWAMY NADAR VS. STATE OF MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
MADHYA PRADESH INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
JANKINATH SARANGI VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. JYOTI PRAKASH MITTER [REFERRED TO]
CHINTAPALLI AGENCY TALUK ARRACK SALES COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED VS. SECRETARY FOOD AND AGRICULTURE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
S L KAPOOR VS. JAGMOHAN [REFERRED TO]
K L TRIPATHI VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS BOMBAY PRIVATE LIMITED BENNETT COLEMAN AND COMPANY LIMITED STATESMAN LIMITED KASTURI AND SONS LIMITED ANANDA BAZAR PATRIKA LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA UNION OF INDIA BISWAROOP CHATTERJEE ACHINTA KUMAR BISWAS NABENDU BOSE LAXMI NARAYAN VS. TULSIRAM PATEL:SADANAND JHA:G P KOUSHAL:UNION OF INDIA:STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA VS. L K RATNA [REFERRED TO]
INDRU RAMCHAND BHARVANI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. D T C MAZDOOR CONGRESS ANB [REFERRED TO]
C B GAUTAM VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
MANAGING DIRECTOR ECIL HYDERABAD VS. B KARUNAKAR [REFERRED TO]
KRISHANLAL VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR [REFERRED TO]
STATE BANK OF PATIALA VS. S K SHARMA [REFERRED TO]
M C MEHTA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY VS. MANSOOR ALI KHAN [REFERRED TO]
PADMASUNDARA RAO DEAD VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
SAI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY VS. STATE OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2003-7-40] [REFERRED TO]C. DURGA SRINIVAS RAO AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-2015-8-20] [REFERRED TO]
KARNATI NAGESWARA RAO VS. DISTRICT COLLECTOR [LAWS(APH)-2012-6-48] [REFERRED TO]
KARNATI NAGESWARA RAO VS. DISTRICT COLLECTOR GUNTUR [LAWS(APH)-2012-4-20] [REFERRED TO]
AMRUTHA SAI MEDICAL AND GENRAL STORES VS. STATE OF A.P. [LAWS(APH)-2022-11-22] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)This writ petition is filed questioning the order of the first respondent dated 17-5-1997 confirming the order of the second respondent as well as the third respondent dated 22-3-1997 and 16-11-1995 respectively. The petitioner prays for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the orders of the first and second respondents as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') and the A.P. Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1973 (for brevity 'the Control Order').
(2.)The fact of the matter is not in dispute. The petitioner was appointed as permanent fair price shop dealer of Nemakal village in the year 1987. The villagers made certain allegations against the petitioner. The local M.L.A. forwarded the representation of the villagers to the Revenue Divisional Officer who is competent authority to appoint a fair price shop dealer. The villagers appear to have alleged that the petitioner is charging higher rates for sugar and kerosene, that he issued less quantity of rice depriving the eligibility of the cardholders and that he made false entries in the record though he did not issue full entitlement. The Mandal Revenue Officer conducted an inquiry into the allegations and submitted a report to the third respondent, who by an order dated 2-6-1995 kept the petitioner under suspension. On 6-9-1995 a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner informing the charges as noticed hereinabove.
(3.)The petitioner submitted his explanation on 18-9-1995 inter alia stating that he sold sugar and kerosene at correct prices, that he supplied rice intended to cardholders according to the entitlement and that he made correct entries in the registers as well as the cards after distributing essential commodities to the cardholders. He also submitted that there are no complaints at any time by any of the cardholders. After considering the explanation of the petitioner herein, the third respondent by proceedings dated 16-11-1995 cancelled the authorization of the petitioner. The petitioner's appeal to the Joint Collector was dismissed on 22-3-1996 and the subsequent revision to the Collector was also unsuccessful.
(2.)The fact of the matter is not in dispute. The petitioner was appointed as permanent fair price shop dealer of Nemakal village in the year 1987. The villagers made certain allegations against the petitioner. The local M.L.A. forwarded the representation of the villagers to the Revenue Divisional Officer who is competent authority to appoint a fair price shop dealer. The villagers appear to have alleged that the petitioner is charging higher rates for sugar and kerosene, that he issued less quantity of rice depriving the eligibility of the cardholders and that he made false entries in the record though he did not issue full entitlement. The Mandal Revenue Officer conducted an inquiry into the allegations and submitted a report to the third respondent, who by an order dated 2-6-1995 kept the petitioner under suspension. On 6-9-1995 a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner informing the charges as noticed hereinabove.
(3.)The petitioner submitted his explanation on 18-9-1995 inter alia stating that he sold sugar and kerosene at correct prices, that he supplied rice intended to cardholders according to the entitlement and that he made correct entries in the registers as well as the cards after distributing essential commodities to the cardholders. He also submitted that there are no complaints at any time by any of the cardholders. After considering the explanation of the petitioner herein, the third respondent by proceedings dated 16-11-1995 cancelled the authorization of the petitioner. The petitioner's appeal to the Joint Collector was dismissed on 22-3-1996 and the subsequent revision to the Collector was also unsuccessful.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.