Thammisetty Edukondalu vs Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet and others

V.V.S. Rao, J.—The appellant in the writ appeal is the petitioner in the writ petition. He filed the writ appeal against the order of the learned single Judge dated 30-4-1999. By the said order the learned single Judge vacated the interim order dated 26-4-1999 granted in WP MP No.9686 of 1999 in Writ Petition No.7809 of 1999. This Court has admitted the writ appeal and granted interim suspension of the impugned order of the learned single Judge on 19-5-1999. When the matter was called on 23-7-1999, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, this Court directed the writ petition to be heard along with the writ appeal. That is how the writ petition and the writ appeal are posted before us for final disposal.

Both these matters are being disposed of by this common order. The parties herein shall be referred to as they are arrayed in the Writ Petition No.7809 of 1999.

A few facts which are necessary for disposal of this Writ Petition are as under:

The petitioner was appointed as a fair price shop dealer of Kattubadivaripalem, Chilakaluripeta Mandal, Guntur District. He has been the fair price shop dealer for the last ten years. A complaint was sent up that he was not distributing the essential commodities and that he was selling sugar and kerosene at higher prices. The complaint was enquired into. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Chilakuripeta and the Civil Supplies Revenue Inspector who were involved during the enquiry submitted a report to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent, being the competent authority issued a show cause notice stating that he has contravened the conditions of authorisation and an explanation was called for. The show-cause notice clearly stated that the petitioner distributed essential commodities at higher prices to 72 card holders. The petitioner submitted an explanation. After considering the explanation, by an order dated 15-1-1997, fair price shop authorisation was suspended by the 1st respondent. An appeal was filed with the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent, by order dated 19-11-1997 allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the 1st respondent to conduct enquiry and pass appropriate orders. The 1st respondent thereupon issued a charge-memo to the petitioner in Re. No.2100/96/B, dated 15-3-1998. The 1st respondent framed the following charge.

"The Card holders mentioned below informed that the essential commodities are not being distributed properly and he was opening the ration shop and distributing according to his own timings and he has been distributing the essential commodities at higher price of Rs. 9-50 per Kg. of Sugar and Rs. 3-50 per litre of Kerosene."

A list containing 72 card numbers was also mentioned in the charge-memo. The petitioner submitted an explanation on 1-4-1998. In the explanation the petitioner submitted that since three years he is distributing the essential commodities without causing any inconvenience to any card holder. He is distributing the sugar and kerosene at the notified prices and he is not charging any higher rates and that the complaint is made with bad motive due to political reasons.

The 1st respondent, after considering the entire matter in detail, passed orders in Rc.No. 2100/96/B, dated 17-4-1998 clearly stating that the petitioner has violated clause 4 of the A. P. Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1973 (hereinafter called "the Control Order") and condition Nos.7,8 and 14(1) of the authorisation and clause 14 of the A, P. Exhibition of Prices and Goods Order, 1966. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner filed an appeal before the Joint Collector, the 2nd respondent herein, under Clause 17 (2) of the Control Order. The appellate authority considered the matter afresh, recorded reasons and dismissed the appeal by order dated 29-8-1998. Against this the petitioner availed further remedy of revision under clause 18 of the Control Order before the 3rd respondent and the same was dismissed by order dated 22-3-1999. Challenging the order of the District Collector confirming that of the Joint Collector and that of the Revenue Divisional Officer the present Writ Petition is filed.

Respondent Nos.5 to 7 herein are impleaded by the order of this Court dated 26-4-1999 in WP MP No. 1146 of 1999. The respondent Nos.5 to 7 are the residents of Kaltubadivaripalem who had made a complaint that the petitioner is distributing essential commodities at higher prices and that he is not opening the shop in the prescribed timings causing inconvenience to the card holders. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and the learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.5 to 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri M. Chandrasekhara Rao has contended that the 2nd respondent passed orders on 19-11-1997 clearly holding that neither the statements taken from the card holders by the Mandal Revenue Officer nor the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer conclusively prove that the fair price shop dealer was selling the essential commodities at higher rates. Therefore the order of the appellate authority again relying on the same reports of the Mandal Revenue Officer is illegal. Secondly, it is contended that the petitioner was on leave from 5-10-1996 to February, 1997 due to ill-health and therefore, he is being held responsible for the illegalities if any that occurred in his fair price shop during the period he was on leave. Finally the learned Counsel contended that the orders passed by the Primary Authority, Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority are perverse and are not based on any evidence.

The learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.3 to 7 contended that the contraventions alleged to have been committed by the petitioner relate to July, 1996 and, therefore, the petitioner''s contention that he was on leave from 5-10-1996 has no relevance. The learned Counsel for the respondents further submitted that based on record the authorities have recorded the finding of fact that the petitioner has contravened the conditions of authorisation by distributing the essential commodities at higher prices and by not keeping the proper timings in opening the shop and, therefore, exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is not called for.

The point that arises for consideration is: Whether the 3rd respondent-the Revisional Authority, has committed any illegality or impropriety in passing the order dated 22-3-1999 upholding the order of the 2nd respondent-the Joint Collector.

The authorisation granted to the petitioner was suspended by the 1st respondent on 15-1-1997 on a charge that he has not been distributing essential commodities properly, that he has not been opening the shop at regular timings and that he is not distributing the essential commodities as per the price fixed by the Government. After receiving the explanation the 1st respondent suspended the authorisation of the petitioner. Against this order the petitioner preferred an appeal under clause 17(1) of the Control Order. The 2nd respondent, by order dated 19-11-1997, set aside the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 15-1-1997. The 2nd respondent further directed that it is open for the 1st respondent to give notice, obtain detailed explanation from the petitioner and take action as per the Control Order. Therefore, when the Joint Collector passed orders on 19-11-1997, he was exercising jurisdiction at interlocutory stage. Any finding at that stage may not and should not come in the way of the Primary Authority to appreciate and consider the evidence at the final stage. In this case after issuing a charge-memo on 15-3-1998, the petitioner''s explanation was obtained and orders were passed on 17-4-1998 cancelling the authorisation. Therefore, the order passed by the Joint Collector in exercise of appellate jurisdiction against the order of cancellation cannot be found fault with on this ground.

The second submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is also liable to be rejected. The allegations pertain to the period of July, 1996. Therefore, even if it is true, the fact that he was on leave from 5-10-1996 till February, 1997 does not help the petitioner. Hence the same is rejected.

The third contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the orders of the Primary Authority, Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority are perverse. We have gone through the entire material placed before us. In our opinion the authorities have come to the correct conclusion with regard to the three contraventions alleged to have been committed by the petitioner. It is well settled that in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the finding of fact cannot be interfered with by this Court. That on a reappreciation of evidence it is always possible for this Court to come to a different conclusion by itself is not a ground for judicial review. Sufficiency or insufficiency of reasons is not a ground for judicial review. Therefore, this ground is also liable to be rejected.

For all the above reasons the Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed.

In view of our order in Writ Petition No.7809 of 1999 nothing survives in the writ appeal and the same is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.