Koppala Sanyasi vs The Revenue Divisional Officer and Others

Bhaskar Rao, J.—In this writ petition the important question that arises is, whether the Mandal Revenue Officer is competent and having jurisdiction to issue authorisation to fair price shops and establishments under the provisions of the A.P. Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1973.

The Writ petitioner is the permanent dealer appointed under the provisions of the A.P. Scheduled Commodities Order, 1973 and while so by the impugned order dated 21-10-1991 the Mandal Revenue Officer, Anakapalle, on the ground that some inquiry is pending against the petitioner in the matter of alleged transportation of two bags of sugar, has authorised the 3rd respondent herein to distribute the scheduled commodities to the card-holders covered by the shop of the petitioner until further orders and consequently directed the concerned officer to allot the stocks of scheduled commodities to the 3rd respondent instead of the petitioner for purposes of distribution. Aggrieved of this order, the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Heard the learned Government Pleader. It is submitted by the learned counsel, Sri V.S.R. Murthy, that under Clause (3) of the A.P. Scheduled Commodities Order, 1973 it is the Revenue Divisional Officer or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate that is vested with the jurisdiction to issue authorisation in so far as the districts in the State are concerned, and that the Mandal Revenue Officer has absolutely no jurisdiction to issue the authorisation and consequently withdraw supply of the commodities to the petitioner for purposes of distribution to the card-holders.

Clause (3) of the A.P. Scheduled Commodities Order, 1973, to the extent relevant, reads:

"3. Issue of authorisation to fair price shops and establishments-(1) With a view to controlling the distribution of Scheduled Commodities, the Revenue Divisional Officer or the Sub-Divisional Officer in so far as the districts are concerned may issue an authorisation to any person being a retail dealer or having charge of an establishment to obtain and supply scheduled commodities in accordance with the provisions of this Order."

From the above clause extracted, it is clear that it should be either the Revenue Divisional Officer or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in so far as the Districts are concerned that has jurisdiction to issue the authorisation. In the case on hand, the officer that issued the authorisation being the Mandal Revenue Officer not envisaged by Clause (3) of the said Order, the impugned order is bad being one made without jurisdiction. Accordingly the impugned order is quashed and the writ petition allowed. No costs. Advocate''s fee Rs. 200/-.