Nakka Parvathi vs State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2021 Latest Caselaw 753 AP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 753 AP
Judgement Date : 11 February, 2021

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Nakka Parvathi vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 11 February, 2021

Bench: Kongara Vijaya Lakshmi

         HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

                   Writ Petition No.13668 of 2019
Order:

      This Writ Petition is filed questioning the suspension order and the

show cause notice both dated 21.08.2019 issued by the second

respondent as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the A.P. Public

Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008.

The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as Fair Price

Shop Dealer on 10.08.2015 and the same was renewed till 31.03.2019;

before expiry of the said date, petitioner filed an application seeking

renewal and hence the petitioner can operate the shop; the Sub-

Inspector of Police, Machavaram Police Station registered a false case

against the petitioner in FIR No.107 of 2019 on 07.08.2019 and the

petitioner was served with a show cause notice and suspension order

both dated 21.08.2019; petitioner submitted her explanation on

11.09.2019, but the same was not acknowledged by the second

respondent and the petitioner was asked to file appropriate petitions

before the competent Courts with regard to FIR and seven days time

was given in the show cause notice to submit explanation; no inspection

took place in the petitioner's shop premises; non-display of stock is minor

variation and the petitioner is filing necessary petitions to quash the FIR

and the suspension should be for a particular period, but the period is

not mentioned in the suspension order. Hence, the Writ Petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the orders

passed by this Court in WP Nos.18173 of 2019 dated 15.11.2019 and

18232 of 2020 dated 08.10.2020 for the proposition that search and

seizure has to be done by the officers not below the rank of Sub-

Inspector, if it is done by the Police Department and that in the present

case the Head Constable, who is not authorized in accordance with the

Control Order, has intercepted the lorry and seized the stock.

As seen from the impugned suspension order dated 21.08.2019,

the suspension is pending enquiry. If the order suspending the

authorization is passed as a punitive measure, then the period of

suspension has to be mentioned in the order, but in the instant case the

suspension order is not as a measure of substantive punishment, but the

authorization is suspended pending enquiry.

W.P.No.18173 of 2019 was filed challenging the seizure of the rice

as contrary to the judgment reported in Sri Vigneswara Traders,

Komerapudi village v. Circle Inspector of Police, Porumamilla

Police Station, YSR Kadapa1. In the said Writ Petition, the Head

Constable seized the rice along with lorry and it was contended that the

Head Constable is incompetent to exercise the power of search and

seizure of rice in view of Clause 20(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Targeted

Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018. The said contention

was accepted therein and the search and seizure were declared as illegal

vide order dated 15.11.2019. The same analogy was also followed in WP

No.18232 of 2020 dated 08.10.2020.

In the present case, the challenge is not to the seizure and the

prayer in the Writ Petition is challenging the suspension order and the

show cause notice both dated 21.08.2019. A specific averment is made

at para 10 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that as the

FIR is false, the petitioner is filing petitions seeking quashing of the FIR,

but during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner

2013 (4) ALD 241

did not state anything with regard to quashing of the FIR by a competent

Court. As the seizure is not questioned in the present Writ Petition, this

Court cannot go into the aspect as to whether the seizure is legal or

illegal. Apart from that, the allegations according to the impugned

suspension order reads as follows.

"The CSDT, Gurazala has submitted a report stating that on receipt of credible information, the ASI of police, Machavaram PS along with his staff rushed to Sri Rukminipuram (V) on 07.08.2019 at about 2.00 PM and at that time on seeing the police jeep on person who stayed in front of one house of the village, has tried to escape from the place on suspicious nature. Immediately, the police caught hold the said person and on enquiry, he revealed his name as Sri Vadithe Shankar Naik, R/o Sri Rukminipuram (V), Machavaram (M).

Smt. Nakka Parvathi, FP Shop dealer Shop No.0705014 of Sri Rukminipuram (V) has instigated him that to sale of PDS Rice stocks allotted to her shop to the open market at higher rates on payment of Rs.3000/- per each transaction to him. Hence, Sri Vadithe, Shankar Naik agreed accordingly, Smt. Nakka Parvathi used to kept the PDS Rice stocks his house in every month and sell the same to the villagers of Guthikonda and nearby villagers at higher rates and doing the said business for the last one year. In the said process, on 07.08.2019 Smt. Naik.

The F.P. Shop dealer failed to display the stock information on a notice board at a prominent place in the shop on daily basis. Thus she violated Cond.4(1) of authorization issued U/C 18 and also she violated Cl.12(n) of APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018.

A criminal case was filed against the dealer vide FIR No.107/2019 as per the authorization issued under the order shall be liable for suspension or cancellation

as the case may be, if the FP, Shop dealer/nominated/retailer/hawker is involved in any criminal case or when any case under EC, Act, 1955 or any other similar law is pending against him/her. Thus she violated Cl.22 of APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018."

As seen from the above paragraphs, apart from the allegation of

non-display of stock on a notice board, there are other allegations

against the petitioner and as the impugned suspension order is only a

suspension pending enquiry and as the show cause notice is already

issued to the petitioner on 21.08.2019, I see no ground to interfere with

the suspension order. However, the respondents/competent authority

are directed to complete the enquiry in accordance with law as

expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight (8) weeks

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As there is an interim

direction pending the Writ Petition, the respondents are directed to

permit the petitioner to operate the subject shop bearing No.14 of

Rukminipuram village, Machavaram Mandal, Guntur district, pending