Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Uppalapati Naga Malleswari vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 22 January, 2021
Bench: Kongara Vijaya Lakshmi
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI
W.P. No. 17762 of 2020
O R D E R:-
This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief:-
".....to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 5th
respondent in seizing the stocks from the petitioner's Fair Price Shop
No.0820032, Konanki village, Martur Mandal, Prakasam District under
mediatorsnama dated 22.09.2020 and initiating Section 6-A Proceedings,
as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to
permit the petitioner to run the F.P.Shop No.0820032."
The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as
temporary Fair Price Shop Dealer of F.P.Shop No.0820032, Konanki
village, Martur Mandal, Prakasam District. On 22.09.2020, when the
Vigilance and Enforcement Authorities inspected the shop, they
found certain variations between the available stock and the epos
machine, and thus, initiated proceedings against the petitioner
under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act and seized the
stock. In the panchanama, it is stated that there is variation with
regard to the rice and the subject shop was handed over to the
neighbouring dealer.
On 06.10.2020, when the matter came up for admission, it
was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
without passing any order of suspension of dealership or initiating
any disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner is not permitted to
distribute the essential commodities, and such an action, is not
permissible in terms of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court
reported in Voleti Tirupathamma vs. District Supply Officer,
Visakhapatnam1. Basing on the same, this Court granted an interim
direction to the respondents to allocate essential commodities to
the petitioner and permit the petitioner to run the fair price shop.
It was also observed that the said order will not preclude the
authorities from following the due procedure in accordance with
law so far as disciplinary proceedings are concerned. When the
matter further came up for hearing on 20.01.2021, the learned
Government Pleader for Civil Supplies sought time to get
instructions as to whether any disciplinary proceedings are initiated
against the petitioner or not. Today, when the matter is taken up,
the learned Government Pleader is not able to submit as to whether
any disciplinary proceedings are initiated against the petitioner or
not.
In view of the same and as there is an interim order directing
the respondents to allocate essential commodities to the petitioner,
the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to
continue to supply essential commodities to the petitioner if no
order either suspending or canceling the authorization of the
petitioner has been passed. However, it is made clear that this
order shall not preclude the respondents from taking appropriate
action in accordance with law.
2002(1) ALD 577
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
22.01.2021
bcj
