Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Smt.E.Navyashree, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 5 February, 2021
Bench: Kongara Vijaya Lakshmi
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI
W.P. No.608 of 2021
O R D E R:-
This writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondents
2 to 4 in not allotting the essential commodities to the petitioner's
fair price shop No.19 situated in Kondur Village, Lepakshi Mandal,
Anantapuramu District, pending disposal of the disciplinary
proceedings, as arbitrary and illegal.
The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as
temporary fair price shop dealer for the subject shop in the year
2015. Due to change in political scenario, the 4th respondent
refused to accept demand drafts for the month of June, 2019 for
release of the essential commodities. Hence, the petitioner was
constrained to file W.P.No.9615 of 2019 and the same was disposed
of on 21.08.2019 directing the respondents to deliver essential
commodities on the petitioner paying the due amount in accordance
with the rules. It was also observed that such an order is without
prejudice to the rights of the respondents to initiate action against
the petitioner in case she commits any irregularities and this order
is also without prejudice to the rights of the respondent authorities
to appoint a regular dealer by following the due process of law.
The 4th respondent submitted a false report on 08.09.2020 alleging
that he inspected the subject shop and found certain irregularities,
and based on the said report, the 3rd respondent issued show cause
notice to the petitioner on 02.12.2020, but there is no separate
report of the Tahsildar recommending disciplinary action against
2 KVL,J
WP_608_2021
the petitioner. The show cause notice contains two charges. The
first charge is with regard to physical maintenance of the scheduled
commodities on ground and there is variation of stock so far as rice
and dal are concerned and the second charge is alleging diversion of
1.935 kgs. of sugar in black-market and that the 4th respondent is
not releasing the essential commodities for distribution to the card
holders even though the authorization was not suspended. Hence,
the writ petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioner, while relying on the
judgment of the Full-Bench of this Court in Oleti Tirupathamma v.
District Supply Officer (City), Visakhapatnam1, states on oath that
the authorization of the petitioner is not suspended as on today and
in spite of the same, the respondents are not releasing the essential
commodities. In the said judgment, the Full-Bench of this Court
observed thus:
"....such action disabling fair price shop dealer to run the shop without
any order of suspension or cancellation, is illegal and arbitrary and
issued such directions".
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and
following the proposition of law declared in Oleti Tirupathamma
(cited 1 supra), the respondents are directed to deliver essential
commodities to the petitioner on her paying the due amount in
accordance with the rules till the authorization of the petitioner
subsists. This order is, however, without prejudice to the rights of
the respondents to proceed against the petitioner pursuant to the
2002(1) ALD 577
3 KVL,J
WP_608_2021
show cause notice and this order is also without prejudice to the
rights of the respondents to appoint a regular dealer by following
the due process of law.
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
05.02.2021
bcj
