Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Buradagunta Indu Kumari vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 3 February, 2021
Bench: Kongara Vijaya Lakshmi
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
