Smt. Shathaj Bee, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2021 Latest Caselaw 1030 AP

     HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

              WRIT PETITION No.15406 of 2020
ORDER:

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. At their

request, the Writ Petition is being disposed of at the

admission stage.

The Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of

respondent Nos.2 and 3, in not proceeding with enquiry

initiated against respondent No.4, under Section 6-A of the

Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'), as illegal

and arbitrary; and a consequential direction was sought to

appoint the petitioner as dealer of fair price shop

No.1259006, Gandhi Bazar, Madakasira, Ananthapur

District.

Facts, in brief, are that respondent No.4 was appointed

as dealer of fair price shop No.1259006, Gandhi Bazar,

Madakasira, Ananthapur District; on 05.11.2019, respondent

No.3 inspected the fair price shop of respondent No.4 and

issued show cause notice dated 27.11.2019 calling for

explanation and stopped supply of essential commodities;

pursuant to the proceedings of respondent No.2 dated

25.11.2019, petitioner was appointed as temporary dealer of

fair price shop No.1259006, Gandhi Bazar, Madakasira,

Ananthapur District; respondent No.4 filed W.P.No.19401 of

2019 contending that, without suspending her authorization,

the respondents are not supplying essential commodities; and

following the judgment in Oleti Tirupathamma v. District

Supply Officer (City) Visakhapatnam1, the said Writ Petition

was disposed of on 05.12.2019 directing the respondents to

release essential commodities till passing any order under

Clause 8(4) of the A.P.State Targeted Public Distribution

System (Control) Order, 2018 (for short 'Control Order, 2018')

or final order whichever is earlier. Petitioner's grievance is

that, even though one year has elapsed, the respondents are

not passing any orders and, if final orders are passed, the

petitioner may get an opportunity to be appointed as

temporary dealer again. Hence the Writ Petition.

Learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies passed

on the written instructions dated 07.09.2020 addressed by

the Tahsildar, Madakasira, wherein it is stated that certain

variations were found in the subject shop being run by

respondent No.4 and a show cause notice was also issued on

27.11.2019 to show cause as to why her authorization

should not be cancelled and, as on date, her authorization

has neither been suspended nor cancelled and that

proceedings, under Section 6-A of the Act, are also pending.

Sri P.Narahari Babu, learned Counsel for respondent

No.4, vehemently contends that the petitioner does not have

any right to ask for completion of enquiry against respondent

No.4.

2002(1) ALD 577

Without going into the merits of the case and without

going into the issue as to whether the petitioner can ask for

early completion of the enquiry against respondent No.4, as

the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies submits

that enquiry initiated against respondent No.4 would be

completed expeditiously, respondents are directed to complete

the enquiry which is initiated against respondent No.4, as

expeditiously as possible.

With the above observation, the Writ Petition stands

disposed of. No order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also

stand disposed of.

________________________________ KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J Date:22.02.2021 usd