Decided on April 24,1992



- (1.)This writ petition is directed against the order dt: 23-12-91 passed in RPNo.il/91/H-15.by the 1st respondent reversing the order of the 2nd respondent herein.
(2.)The matter concerns filling up the vacancy of dealership of Fair Price Shop No. 21 of Anakapally Mandal of Visakhapatnam Dist. for which the petitioner and the 5th respondent were the contenders. The authority, before whom the applications were to be filed is the 3rd respondent who issued the notification calling for applications on 2.8.90. and the applications were to be filed by 17-8-90. It is not disputed that as on 17.8.90, the 5th respondent was holding a licence as a hawker to supply kerosene. But it is submitted by Mr Murthy, the learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent herein that such a hawkar's licence was surrendered by the 5th respondent on 3.11.90 and that the same was accepted on 30.11.90 and the interview was conducted on 12.11.90 He was no more a hawker as he had already tendered resignation of the said dealership on 3.11.90. In fact, the 5th respondent was appointed by the 3rd respondent for the above dealership and this fact was not considered by him and when the appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent all the facts were weighed both in favour and against the petitioner and the Respondent No. 5 and as such, the 2nd respondent by his comprehensive order dt; 24-6-91 in his proceedings number Ac. 11/91/H13 allowed the appeal holding that the petitioner is entitled to be appointed as a dealer for the fairprice shop in question and held accordingly. The 2nd respondent has takes note of the fact that the 5th respondent was holding hawker's licence in kerosene and as such as per the guidelines governing the grant of dealership in question he was disqualified to apply. In so far as the petitioner is concerned, he was only a temporary dealer and that is not a disqualification On further appeal by the 5th respondent to the 1st respondent the matter was not decided in proper perspective and observations are cursory and the order is slip-shod. The 1st respondent has reversed the well-considered order of the 2nd respondent on the ground that the date of interview being 12.11.90 and that as the 5th respondent has surrendered his kerosene hawker's licence and the same was accepted by the 4th respondent there was no disqualification. But he did not consider the aspect in proper perspective in the context of the date of notification and the date of application. The qualification is to be judged as on the date of application and that is the criterion. On the date of application, a person should be eligible and qualified. The contention that even though he was disqualified on the date of application, but later due to surrender of his licence he was qualified and that the qualification should relate back to the date of application cannot be countenanced. The fundamental thing is that the qualification should exist on the date of application and here is a case where the 5th respondent was disqualified from making application. Further, even on his own saying, his resignation offered on 3-11-90 was accepted only on 30.11.90 and it is needless to mention that the resignation from dealership comes into effect only from the date t f acceptance ie, 30.11.90 and not before.
(3.)Having regard to all these factors, I have got no hesitation to hold that the order of the 1st respondent reversing the well considered order of the 2nd respondent is fit to be set aside and accordingly, the same is set aside restoring the order passed by the 2nd respondent herein in conferring the dealership of Fair Price Shop No. 21 of Anakapalli on the petitioner herein.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.