HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI
W.P. No.12781 of 2020
O R D E R:-
This writ petition is filed questioning the proceedings dated
01.07.2020 of the 2nd respondent suspending the authorization of
the petitioner as fair price shop dealer, The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as fair price shop dealer for shop No.0726212 situated in Jonnalagadda village, Guntur Rural. While so, on 22.06.2020, the respondents inspected the petitioner's shop and seized the ground stock alleging that there is variation between the ground stock and the stock according to E-Pass machine and handed over the seized stock to a nearby dealer; the 3rd respondent sent a report to the 2nd respondent through his letter dated 23.06.2020. Based on the said report, the 2nd respondent issued show cause notice to the petitioner on 01.07.2020 calling upon her to show cause within seven days as to why her authorization should not be cancelled. The petitioner submitted her explanation on 13.07.2020 to the 2nd respondent. Now, the petitioner's grievance is that the 2nd respondent, without waiting for the explanation of the petitioner, suspended her authorization on 01.07.2020 itself vide proceedings Rc.No.360/2020-S8 and the 2nd petitioner has no authority to suspend her dealership based on the report of the 3rd respondent issued under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act. Hence, the writ petition.
2 KVL,J
WP_12781_2020
On 31.07.2020, when the matter was taken up for hearing, this Court suspended the proceedings of the 2nd respondent.
The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment dated 31.12.2019 passed by this Court in W.P.No.18392 of 2019 which was filed challenging the suspension of the dealership of the petitioner therein as fair price shop dealer. The said writ petition was allowed on the ground that the suspension of authorization is contrary to Clause 20(i) of the A.P. Public Distribution Control Order, 2018 (for brevity "Control Order"). Clause 20(i) of the Control Order reads as follows:
"The inspecting authorities as and when found contravention of the provisions of this Order shall submit necessary inspection reports for initiation of disciplinary action under this Order. In case of seizure of scheduled commodities, for any violation or contravention of the provisions of this Order, a report of seizure shall be submitted to the Collector/Joint Collectors, as the case may be, for initiating the action under Section 6-A(1) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Simultaneously, a separate report shall be filed for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against errant dealer under the provisions of this Order and for violating the conditions of authorization."
As per Clause 20(i) of the Control Order, a separate report has to be sent recommending disciplinary action against the dealer. But in W.P.No.18392 of 2019, a separate report for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the dealer was not sent and in those circumstances, the said writ petition was allowed. The said order was passed based on the facts of that case wherein the contention of the petitioner therein was that there was no separate report sent by the Tahsildar and the written instructions submitted by the learned Government Pleader in that case also state that 3 KVL,J WP_12781_2020 there was a separate report issued by the Tahasildar, but because a copy thereof is not placed on record by the learned Government Pleader, the said writ petition was allowed observing that initiation of disciplinary action without filing a separate report as required under Clause 20(i) of the Control Order is a serious illegality.
In the instant case, the impugned order suspending the authorization of the petitioner dated 01.07.2020 refers to the report of the Tahsildar in the following words"
"Accordingly, the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, Guntur Rural has filed a report under Section 6-A of the E.C.Act, 1955 before the Joint Collector, Guntur and requested to confiscate the entire seized stocks to the Government and also recommended in the reference cited for initiation of disciplinary action against the F.P.Shop dealer for the irregularities committed by her."
The referred report in the said assessment order is the report of the Tahsildar sent on 23.06.2020.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said report referred to in the impugned order is not a report pertaining to the disciplinary proceedings, but it is a report under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act. However, the fact remains that the learned Government Pleader uploaded both the report submitted by the Tahsildar recommending disciplinary action which is dated 23.06.2020 and a report under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act which is also dated 23.06.2020. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the documents uploaded and served on him by the learned Government Pleader.
4 KVL,J
WP_12781_2020
In view of the above, as the report dated 23.06.2020 of the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, Guntur is referred to in the order suspending the authorization and as the copy of the same is also placed before this Court by the learned Government Pleader and as the same has been referred to in the impugned order, there is no violation of Clause 20(i) of the Control Order.
Secondly, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the variation with regard to chenadal, sugar and red gram dal are within the permissible limits and the learned Government Pleader does not dispute the same, but submits that the variation with regard to the rice is 1.44 quintals and the same is beyond the permissible limits. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the total stock that is supplied to the dealer, the sales that are made and the closing balance show that the variation is within the permissible limits. As seen from the explanation submitted by the dealer on 13.07.2020, he also took a plea that this variation is within permissible limits.
In view of the above, the respondents are directed to examine the explanation submitted by the petitioner pursuant to the show cause notice, conduct enquiry as deem fit and then take appropriate decision in the matter. But, as the petitioner is being continued pursuant to the interim direction granted by this Court on 31.07.2020, the respondents are directed to continue to supply essential commodities to the petitioner pending disposal of the enquiry.
5 KVL,J
WP_12781_2020
With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
________________________ KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J 03.02.2021 bcj