SOMISETTI ANJANEYULU Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR PRAKASHAM DIST AT ONGOLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is a fair-price shop dealer of Dubagunta village, located in Pamuru. A show cause notice dated 28th November 1987 was issued to him by the Assistant Collector, Kandukur, Praka- sham District, alleging contravention of the provisions of Clauses 14(1) (c) and 16 (2) of the Andra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order 1973. (hereinafter referred to as'the Order'). The show cause notice was issued on the ground that, when the Assistant Collector, along with the Mandal Revenue Officer, Pamur and Mandal Revenue Inspector, Pamur, surprised the shop of the appellant at bout 5-50 p m, on 27th November 1987, the shop was closed and locked from inside. The appellant was found to be absent from the village as well as from the shop. Though the family members of the appellant reside inside, they did not open the shop. The Assistant Collector waited for the appellant till 6-45 p.m., but the appellant did not turn-up. Ultimately, two charges were framed in the show cause noticed. The first charge was that, the appellant absented himself from the village and abruptly closed the shop and stopped the business without taking any permission, and without notice to the competent authorities, and caused inconvenience to the inspecting officials as well as consumers. The second charge was that, he failed to make available relevant record, pertaining to the shop, in the premises of the shop, for checking of the shop by the competent authority. It was thus alleged that the appellant contravened the provisions of the aforesaid Clauses of the Order. The appellant sent his application dated 14-12-1987 disclosing as to how he had to abruptly go to hospital, and as to how his wife could not attend to officials at the relevant time.

(2.) The Assistant Collector, by his Proceedings dated 28-12-1987, accepted the reasons for the absence of the appellant from the village and the shop, and exonarated him of the first charge. The Assistant Collector, however, found on the second charge, that the explanation offered by the appellant is not acceptable as the Assistant Collector waited at the residence of the appellant for about an hour, and his door was knocked many a time but no reply came from inside. He found that the house was locked from inside intentionally. Based on this finding on the second charge, he directed cancellation of the authorisation for dealership in favour of the petitioner. The appellant took the matter in appeal to the Joint Collector and the appeal was dismissed by order dated 4th August 1988. The revision preferred by the appellant before the Collector and District Magistrate, Prakasham District, Ongole, also failed, and was dismissed by order dated 5th October 1988.

(3.) Clauses 14 (1) (c) and 16 (2) of the Order, read as follows :-