Smt. Zaibunnisa Begum, Nalgonda Dist. v. Dist. Collector, Nalgonda Dist. And 3 ORS.

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITON No.10677 of 2012 ORDER:

The proceedings under challenge in this Writ Petition is the order passed by the District Collector, Nalgonda dated 20.03.2012 confirming the appellate order passed by the Joint Collector on 16.06.2011, which in turn confirmed the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 07.08.2010 cancelling the fair price shop authorisation of the petitioner herein.

Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner asking her to show cause why action should not be taken against her on the ground that she and her husband had indulged in clandestine business of PDS kerosene diverting 50 litres of kerosene illegally into the black market which was meant for distribution to poor card holders, and had thereby contravened clause 17(a) of APS PDS (Control Order), 2008; the Inspecting team had compared the physical stocks, available with the Fair Price Shop with reference to book balances, and noticed variation of 0.809 quintals of rice and 67 litres of kerosene; it was evident, therefore, that the dealer had not maintained true and correct accounts; and they had contravened Clause 22 of APS PDS (Control Order), 2008.

In his order dated 08.07.2009, the Joint Collector, Nalgonda observed that, in her explanation, the petitioner had stated that it was not correct that the villagers had caught hold of 50 litres of kerosene under diversion by her husband at Yadagirigutta i.e., 10 kms away from their village; they were not aware about the kerosene which was

seized; on that day, her husband went to Bhongir on some work; he was not in the village on 24.02.2009; she had received 392 litres of kerosene from Sri Manchala Mallesham of Bhongir who was the Wholesale kerosene dealer; she had entered the available rice stock in the register; while she was also distributing 60 litres of kerosene to the cardholders on 25.02.2009, the Revenue Inspector had seized the stock, and had booked a case against her; the allegation that there was variation, in the stock of kerosene and rice, was not correct; and some other villagers, because of election rivalry, had forced a case to be booked against her.

The Joint Collector, thereafter, observed that the petitioner had not submitted any plausible explanation for the variations noticed during the enquiry i.e., 67 litres of kerosene and 80 kgs of PDS rice; and she had merely denied diversion of 50 litres of kerosene by her husband. The Joint Collector directed confiscation of 100% value of the kerosene under diversion, which the villagers had caught hold of, besides 40% value of the stocks of essential commodities seized from the fair price shop, in favour of the Government. Even before the aforesaid confiscation order was passed, the Revenue Divisional Officer issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 16.03.2009, and thereafter placed the authorisation of the petitioner under suspension vide proceedings dated 16.03.2009.

The petitioner submitted her reply to the show cause notice on 08.05.2009. In his order dated 07.08.2010, the Revenue Divisional Officer observed that, as per the earlier order of the Joint Collector, Nalgonda, vide proceedings dated 08.07.

the Government. The Revenue Divisional Officer cancelled the petitioner's authorisation.

Aggrieved thereby the petitioner carried the matter in appeal to the Joint Collector who, in his order dated 16.06.2011, observed that, as per the complaint of the villagers, the petitioner's husband had diverted 50 litres of kerosene oil; on verification of the fair price shop, the Inspecting Authority found variation of 67 litres of kerosene oil, which proved that there was illegal diversion of highly subsidized kerosene oil; and the dealer had not furnished proper reasons for the variation in kerosene oil stocks. The Joint Collector found no merit in the appeal.

Aggrieved thereby the petitioner preferred a revision to the District Collector, Nalgonda who, by his order dated 20.03.2012, dismissed the revision holding that the variation in stock was 0.80 quintals of rice, and 67 litres of kerosene oil, which was beyond the admissible variation; as per the complaint of the villagers, the petitioner's husband had sought to divert 50 litres of kerosene oil; on verification of the fair price shop, by the inspecting team, a shortage of 67 litres of kerosene stock was found; this showed that highly subsidized kerosene oil was diverted by the petitioner's husband; and the allegation that a false case was foisted on her was without any basis.

Sri B. Lingaiah Yadav, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that, while the order of confiscation no doubt records 50 litres of kerosene oil having been seized at Yadagirigutta, no panchanama was conducted regarding seizure of the stock; false complaints were made because of political rivalry in the village; the petitioner's husband was not in town, and had gone to Bhongir on personal work; his

absence was misused by the complainant stating that 50 litres of kerosene oil was illegally seized from him at Yadagirigutta; and the impugned order necessitated being set aside.

The fact that a quantity of 50 litres of kerosene oil was seized from the petitioner's husband is recorded in the confiscation order passed by the Joint Collector dated 08.07.2009, which order has attained finality. Further, on an inspection being caused to the petitioner's shop soon after seizure of 50 litres of kerosene oil at Yadagirigutta, it was found that there was a shortage of 67 litres of kerosene oil in the petitioner's shop. This shortage of 67 litres in the kerosene oil stock supports the finding that 50 litres of kerosene oil was diverted from the petitioner's shop, at Jangampally village, to Yadagirigutta 10 km away.

All the three authorities have concurrently held against the petitioner. These findings of fact do not necessitate interference, in the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as these findings can neither be said to perverse nor to be based on no evidence. I see no reason, therefore, to interfere with the orders impugned in this Writ Petition. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs. _______________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, ACJ Date: 06.07.2018 MRKR