L. Sankara Naidu vs District Collector and Others

S.R. Nayak, J.—The petitioner was the authorised fair price shop dealer and he had obtained an authorisation from respondent No. 3 -Revenue Divisional Officer under the provisions of the Andhra. Pradesh Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Order''. The third respondent received a report from the Mobile Squad Deputy Tahsildar, office of the Collector, Chittoor dated 10-9-1991 alleging that the writ petitioner had committed certain irregularities in the maintenance of accounts and in distribution of essential commodities to the card holders during the months of March to August, 1991 and requesting him to take necessary action against the petitioner. The third respondent, basing on the said report of the Mobile Squad Deputy Tahsildar, suspended the authorisation granted to the petitioner by his proceedings dated 21-9-1991 pending on enquiry into the allegations levelled against the petitioner. The charges levelled against the petitioner were the following:

"Charge No. I: During the enquiry Sri Jayasankar Naidu card holder No. 520417 stated that the dealer is selling rice at Rs. 2-00 and sugar at 5.75 per Kg. and the dealer is not giving essential commodities to his card when he approaches and the dealer is also using harsh words when he approaches for essential commodities.

Charge No. II: That the dealer is distributing essential commodities in lesser weight of 50 gms per Kg. and not giving bills to any commodity.

Charge No. III: That the dealer has not distributed rice to the following cards in the month of 7.91 and misused the stock in clandestine disposal. (1) 502984, (2) 427942, (3) 502995, (4) 51)2982, (5) 531220.

Charge No. IV: That the dealer has distributed sugar to the following cards in one signature on the following dates and manipulated the accounts and misused the stocks in clandestine disposal:

(Details of cards omitted)

Charge No. V: That the dealer has distributed sugar to the following cards in one signature on the following dates and manipulated the accounts and misused the stocks in clandestine disposal.

(Details of cards omitted)

Charge VI: That the dealer has distributed kerosene to the following card holders in one signature on the following dates and maniputed the accounts and misused the stock in clandestine disposal.

(Details of card holders omitted)

Charge No. VII: Duirng the year 1990 the dealer has committed irregularities in maintaining accounts and in distribution of essential commodities to the card holders and was fined Rs. 1,000/- and was warned to be more careful in the functioning of F.P. shop and maintenance of accounts in future. But the dealer has again commited grave irregularities.

The third respondent after perusing the explanations offered by the petitioner and after hearing the petitioner, made the order on 23-12-1991 recording a finding that the charges 1 to 3 are not proved and the remaining charges 4 to 7are proved. In that view of the matter the third respondent felt that it was highly prejudicial to the public interest to continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer and in the light of the opinion reached by him. He cancelled the authorisation issued to the petitioner under the Order. Being aggrieved by the said order of the third respondent the petitioner preferred an appeal to the second respondent-Joint Collector under the provisions of the Order. Before the second respondent the petitioner filed certain representations of the card holders to the effect that they used to get the essential commodities from the shop by utilising the services of the third parties. The Joint Collector too after appreciation of the arguments advanced before him on behalf of the petitioner and other materials placed before him affirmed the order made by the third respondent and rejected the appeal. Even the further revision preferred by the petitioner to the first respondent-District Collector under the provisions of the Order failed and hence this writ petition.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner advanced only one argument before the Court to assail the order made by the District Collector and the subordinate authorities. The contention was that the Joint Collector as well as the District Collector are not justified in passing the impugned orders without reference to or consideration of the statements and the representations of the certain card holders which were filed before them in support of his defence. According to the learned Counsel this lapse on the part of the District Collector and the Joint Collector in not considering the relevant materials vitiates the impugned orders. That was the only argument advanced before the Court and no other point was urged.

Before adverting to the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner it may be briefly noted the scope of judicial review in a matter like this. The Court has extracted the charges supra. Any finding that may be recorded on these charges is essentially a question of fact. Therefore, unless this Court finds that the findings recorded by the authorities below are totally perverse and therefore they are based on ''no evidence'' this Court cannot reappreciate the evidence placed before the authorities and form a different opinion and substitute its opinion in the place of the opinion reached by the authorities below. Assuming that from the materials placed before the authorities a different conclusion is possible and permissible, even then the opinion arrived at by the authorities cannot be substituted by such opinion.

I have carefully gone through the orders made by the three authorities below. These three authorities below are administrative authorities armed with necessary powers by the provisions of the ''Order'' to regulate supply of essential commodities to the public. It is not only the power of these authorities but duty to see that the essential commodities should reach the intended beneficiaries and if they find that objective was thwarted by any fair price shop dealer then they should have and in fact they have necessary powers to stop or thwart the attempt. The third respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer in his order among other findings has pointed that the petitioner released 75 Kgs. of rice to one particular instance is noted by the Court because this is highly incredible to support the plea of the petitioner that some time and on certain occasions the card holders used to send third parties to collect the commodities. It is also pointed out by the third respondent that many times the commodities were collected not by the card holders themselves but by third parties. These are all essential questions of fact and appreciation of the same is left to the concerned administrative authorities. Therefore, it cannot be said that the findings recorded by the third respondent-original authority are baseless or perverse. There is acceptable evidence and materials to support the opinion reached by the third respondent-officer. At this juncture itself it may be noted that the petitioner did not file the statements or the affidavits of the card holders before the original authority in support of the plea of his defence and he chose to file such representations only before the appellate authority-joint Collector. Of course the Joint Collector and the District Collector have not dealt with the representations of the card holders but both of them have applied their mind to the defence put forth by the petitioner and have given cogent and acceptable reasons for their conclusion. Therefore, I do not find any manageable test of rationality to test the correctness of the findings, findings on questions of fact recorded by the authorities below. Consequently the writ petition fails and is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case the parties are directed to bear their own costs.