BEFORE THE COLLECTOR & DISTRICT

MAGISTRATE :: PRAKASAM DISTRICT :: ONGOLE

Revision Petition No.

/2011

Between:
Thalari Guravaiah S/o.Nadipi Guravaiah,
Aged about 34 years, Hindu, F.P.Shop Dealer,
R/o.Mohiddinpuram Village, Ardhaveedu Mandal,
Prakasam District.
Revision Petitioner
AND
1. The Joint Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Markapur.
Respondents
REVISION FILED UNDER CLAUSE 21 OF A.P.STATE PUBLIC
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (CONTROLE) ORDER 2008
1.

The revision petitioner submits that he belongs to B.C.(A) and he is a

poor educated un-employee and has been acting as F.P shop dealer of
Mohiddinpuram Village, Ardhaveedu Mandal for the last 10 years without
any complaint and his authorization is valid up to 31-03-2012.
2.

while

so,

on

23-02-2011,

wholesale

Kerosene

Dealer,

N.Subrahmanyam, who is acting as Benami of original dealer, deceased

D.Galaiah, delivered 550 Lts. of K.Oil, though the revision petitioner
submitted D.D. for entire allotment of 1000 Lts. for the month of March2011, stating that they would deliver remaining 450 Lts. of K.Oil next day.
But the Benami dealer having issued Bill for 1000 Lts. and obtained
endorsement of the revision petitioner to that effect, failed to deliver balance
of 450 lts. of K.Oil till 23-03-2011.
3.

In the meanwhile, during absence of the revision petitioner, the

E.D.T., Ardhaveedu along with Mandal Revenue Officer, inspected the

revision petitioners shop on 23-3-2011 and have verified Sales and Stock
Registers and seized 550 Lts. of K.Oil available in the shop premises by
preparing Panchanama with incorrect recitals by showing available stock of
K.Oil as 510 Lts. alleging that the petitioner diverted 496 lts basing on
complaint given by G.Kasiaha, who is ex-dealer opponent of revision
petitioners father-in-law Naga Kasiah and subsequently sent 6-A Report to
learned Joint Collector on 24-03-2011 against revision petitioner.
4.

Immediately

thereafter, the revision

petitioner

also

filed

representation before the learned Joint collector on 1-4-2011 with true facts.

The Revision Petitioner also filed explanation to the show-cause notices

issued by Joint Collector and R.D.O and the said explanations and also the
6-A Report submitted by Deputy Tahsildar, Ardhaveedu Mandal and the
Panchanama prepared on 23-3-2011, which is corrected as 24-03-2011 and
also the Xerox copy of the Sales Register are filed herewith and they may be
read as part of grounds of Revision.
5.

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Markapur without giving opportunity

and without conducting any enquiry and without considering the corrections
and manipulations in Panchanama and Sales Register passed impugned
order of Temporary cancellation of Authorization in Rc.H/443/2011,
dt.28-03-2011.
6.

As against the said orders of the R.D.O, the revision petitioner

preferred appeal before the learned Joint Collector, Ongole, and the learned
Joint Collector passed impugned order, in routine manner dismissing the
appeal

preferred

by

the

revision

petitioner

on

02-10-2011

in

Rc.CS2/1301/2011 without considering the documents submitted by the

revision petitioner and without considering the statement of the revision
petitioner and other concerned officers and persons. The revision petitioner
also filed criminal appeal No.186/2011 against orders of the Joint Collector
in 6-A case.
7.

Aggrieved by the said impugned order of the learned Joint Collector,

the revision petitioner is filing the present revision on the following among
other grounds.

GROUNDS OF REVISON
1.

The order of the learned Joint Collector is unjust, contrary to law and

facts and arbitrary, and unsustainable and is liable to be set aside.

2.

The learned Joint Collector failed to see that the R.D.O passed the

impugned order without application of mind and without considering the

facts and circumstances in proper perspective.
3.

The learned Joint Collector having perused the Records and found the

corrections and manipulations in the Panchanama, 6-A Report and Sales

Register and having directed in his order in 6-A case, for a discreet enquiry
in this regard directing R.D.O to enquire into the matter and submit the
Report within a period of 10 days, passed impugned order observing that
some manipulations of record has taken place and R.D.O, Markapur, has to

take appropriate action for fabrication of records, in a very vague manner

knowing fully well that the corrections and manipulations in his records are
made by the concerned officers, with a view to protect and safeguard the
interests of the Officers.
4.

The learned Joint Collector failed to consider that the proceedings

U/s.6-A cannot be initiated basing on such invalid Panchanama prepared by

the Inspecting Officers with corrections at the instance of the opposite party.
5.

The learned Joint Collector and also the R.D.O, failed to consider the

fact mentioned by the Inspecting Officers in the Panchanama that no Cardholder came forward to give any complaint against the revision
petitioner at the time of inspection, which fact is clearly stated at page-5
of 6-A Report submitted before the learned Joint Collector.
6.

The learned Joint Collector failed to consider the explanation

submitted by the revision petitioner in which he has clearly stated that about
corrections in the Panchanama and 6-A Report, requesting the learned Joint
Collector to take necessary action against the officers concerned, who are
responsible for the corrections and manipulations in 6-A Report,
Panchanama and Sales Register.
7.

The learned Joint Collector failed to note that admittedly the Sales

Register though seized by the Inspecting Officers on 23-03-2011, at the time

of inspection, the Inspecting Officers after verification found a shortage of
496 Lts. of K.Oil and subsequently after seizure of the Register, purposely
manipulated the Sales Register by adding Distribution Particulars to the
extent of 460 lts., as if distributed by petitioner on 22-3-2011 by correcting
the dates in the Panchanama and 6-A Report submitted to the learned Joint
Collector. Evidently the learned Joint Collector is silent about the aspect of
corrections even though it is very serious offence supporting the Inspecting
Officers, who wanted to safeguard the interest of the Benami dealer,
Nadendla Subrahmanyam.
8.

The learned Joint Collector failed to consider that the Honble High

Court passed interim orders on 7-6-2011 in W.P.No.14860/2011 specifically

directing to clarify the facts by suspending the orders of the R.D.O,
Markapur permitting the revision petitioner to distribute the E.Cs to the
Card-holders until further orders. The said writ petition is still pending.
9.

The learned Joint Collector failed to note that the R.D.O, knowing

fully well, that the Revision Petitioner is not guilty of contraventions of any
3

Control Orders and not committed any irregularity, passed impugned order,
defending the inspecting officers concerned and finding fault with the
revision petitioner with the sole object of protecting the officers concerned,
who involved in serious offences of corrections and manipulations as stated
above, thought they are liable to be punished under the provisions of Indian
Penal Code, though the impugned order passed by the Joint Collector, on
02-10-2011 the copy of said order served on his advocate on 25-10-2011 and
on the petitioner by post on 28-10-2011 with some oblique motive.
10.

The learned Joint Collector purposely ignored the orders of the

Honble High Court and also silent about the corrections and manipulations
made by the officers concerned in the 6-A Report and Panchanama.
11.

The learned Joint Collector failed to note that the order passed by the

R.D.O, dt.28-03-2011 is only for temporary cancellation of Authorization

and as such the learned Joint Collector ought to have remanded the matter
to the R.D.O for fresh disposal, in view of the pendency of the Writ
Petition filed by the revision petitioner is still pending before the
Honble High Court of A.P, and in view of directions of Joint Collector
to conduct a discreet enquiry regarding the corrections and
manipulations in Panchanama and Sales Register.
12.

The order of the learned Joint Collector is very vague and opposed to

all principles of natural justice and the order is prima facie, illegal and is
without application of mind and contrary to mandatory provisions of Control
Orders.
Prayer:The Revision Petitioner therefore prays that the Honble District Collector
be pleased to allow the Revision by setting aside the orders passed by the Joint
Collector, Ongole in Rc.CS2/1301/2011, dt.02-10-2011, dismissing the Appeal and
also the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Markapur, dt.28-03-2011 in
Rc.H/443/2011, temporarily cancelling the authorization of the revision petitioner
and permit the revision petitioner as F.P. shop dealer pending disposal of the
revision and pass such other appropriate orders as the Honble Court deems fit and
proper, in the interests of justice.

Be pleased to Consider
Ongole,
Dt.31-10-2011.

Advocate for Revision Petitioner

BEFORE THE COLLECTOR & DISTRICT

MAGISTRATE :: PRAKASAM DISTRICT :: ONGOLE
Revision Petition No.

/2011

Between:
Thalari Guravaiah

Petitioner
AND

1. The Joint Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Markapur.

Respondents

STAY PETITION FILED UNDER CLAUSE 20(3) OF A.P.STATE

PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (CONTROLE) ORDER 2008
1.

The petitioner submits that he belongs to B.C.(A) and he is a poor

educated un-employee and has been acting as F.P shop dealer of

Mohiddinpuram Village, Ardhaveedu Mandal for the last 10 years without
any complaint and his authorization is valid up to 31-03-2012.
2.

The learned Joint Collector without considering the documents

submitted by the revision petitioner and without considering the statements

recorded by him in proper perspective passed impugned order, which is
contrary to provisions of control order and also to the principles of natural
justice.

The petitioner received the copy of the impugned order on

28-10-2011, though the order, dt.02-10-2011.

3.

The petitioner submits that his authorization is in force till

31-03-2012. The petitioner has been distributing the commodities as

usual and he has already obtained D.D.s towards allotment for the
months of Nov and Dec-2011 towards K.Oil, Sugar and also Rice and
submitted the same before the Tahsildars Officer of Ardhaveedu.
4.

The petitioner therefore prays that the Honble District Collector be

pleased to stay the operation of the orders of the learned Joint Collector,
dt.02-10-2011 and Revenue Divisional Officer, Markapur, dt.28-03-2011
pending disposal of the revision petition and permit the revision petitioner
to continue the distribution of the E.Cs to the Card-holders as usual till
disposal of Revision.

Be pleased to Consider
Advocate for Petitioner
Ongole,
Dt.31-10-2011.

Petitioner

List of Documents
1.Impugned order of the Joint Collector, Ongole, dt.02-10-2011 in
Rc.CS2/1301/2011with Postal Cover.
5

2.Demand Drafts for Rs.11,816/- dt.17-10-2011 and Rs.24,395/dt.21-10-2011 and Release Orders.
3.6-A Report,
4.Panchanama, dt.23-03-2011, corrected as 24-03-2011.
5.Xerox copy of the Sales Register,
6. Order of the Honble High Court in W.P.No.14860, dt.07-06-2011.

Advocate for Petitioner

A.R.K.M
BEFORE THE COLLECTOR AND
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ONGOLE
Revision Petition No.

2011

REVISION PETITION FILED

UNDER

CLAUSE 21 OF A.P.STATE PUBLIC

DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (CONTROLE)
ORDER 2008

FILED BY:Sri.ALAPATI RADHA KRISHNA MURTHY,

ADVOCATE, ONGOLE.