AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Battu Devanand, J
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming the following relief:
“To issue Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No3 in passing orders in Rc.CS2/25/2022 dated 11.11.2022 dismissing the appeal filed by petitioner against the restoration of F.P Shop dealership authorization of Respondent No.7 through Rc.I/248/2022 dated 7.3.2022 by Respondent No.4 even without hearing from petitioner is illegal arbitrary highhanded violation of principles of natural justice in violation of Article 19(1)(g) of Constitution of India and also contrary to the Control Order 2008 and consequently to set-side the order passed in Rc.CS2/25/2022 dated 11.11.2022 by Respondent No.3 who confirmed the order of Respondent No.4 dated 7.3.2022 in Rc.I/248/2022.”
The case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner was appointed as temporary Fair Price Shop Dealer for Shop No.0845034, Maddirala Muppala Village, Naguluppalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District. Vacancy for the above said shop arose due to suspension of the dealer/Respondent No.7, alleging certain irregularities in distributing the essential commodities to the cardholders. To avoid inconvenience to the cardholders, the said fair price shop was allotted to the petitioner on temporary basis. Since then, the petitioner has been distributing essential commodities to the cardholders.
While the matter stood thus, the Respondent No.4 restored the authorization of Respondent No.7 vide proceedings Rc.No.I/248/2002 dated 07.03.2022. Against the said order of restoration, the petitioner filed an Appeal and Stay petition before the Respondent No.3. The Respondent No.3 stayed the restoration proceedings vide order dated 25.03.2022 in Rc.CS2/25/2022. As against the stay order passed by the Respondent No.3 dated 25.03.2022, Respondent No.7 filed W.P.No.8058 of 2022 before this Court and this Court directed the Respondent No.3 to dispose of the Appeal filed by the petitioner within three months.
When the Appeal was posted on 27.08.2022, the petitioner could not attend before Respondent No.3 due to ill-health and filed a Memo to that effect, requesting to adjourn the Appeal to any nearest date. But, the request of the petitioner was rejected and the Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed vide order in Rc.CS2/25/2022 dated 11.11.2022.
The contention of the petitioner is that, the Respondent No.4 has not issued any notice while conducting disciplinary proceedings. Even though the explanation of the dealer was not convincing, the Respondent No.4 took a lenient view and dropped the charges leveled against the dealer by imposing penalty of Rs.2,000/- and restored the authorization of the dealer/Respondent No.7. The Respondent No.3 erroneously accepted the action of Respondent No.4. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.
The respondents did not file any counter affidavit.
Heard Sri Alapati Vivekananda, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and perused the material available on record.
Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for both sides and upon perusal of the material available on record, it appears that, the petitioner was appointed temporarily as a stop-gap arrangement for Fair Price Shop Dealer for Shop No.0845034, Maddirala Muppala Village, Naguluppalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District, in the place of Respondent No.7. The Respondent No.3 dropped the charges leveled against the dealer/Respondent No.7 as they were not grave in nature and by taking a lenient view, restored his authorization by imposing penalty of Rs.2,000/-with a warning to be more careful in future while distributing the essential commodities.
Admittedly, the petitioner is appointed on temporary basis till the vacancy is filled up regularly. Such appointment is valid for specific period. When the authorization of the original dealer is restored, the temporary dealer who was appointed on stop gap arrangement has no right to claim the dealership and question of allotting dealership to him does not arise.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and as already the Respondent No.4 restored the authorization of the dealer/Respondent No.7, in our considered view, interference of this Court in this issue is not required in this writ petition.
For the above stated reasons, the petitioner failed to make out any case and there are no valid grounds warranting interference of this Court against the order passed by the Respondent No.3.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand dismissed.