Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Bommidi Narayana Swamy, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 28 January, 2021
Bench: Kongara Vijaya Lakshmi
HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI
WRIT PETITION No.2023 of 2021
ORDER :
This Writ Petition is filed challenging the proceedings of the
2nd respondent dated 19.09.2020 suspending the authorization of
the petitioner's Fair Price Shop.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the
respondents, and with their consent, the Writ Petition is being
disposed of at the stage of admission.
3. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as
Fair Price Shop dealer for Shop No.0637047 situated at
Tallapalem Village, Machilipatnam Mandal, Krishna District; on
10.09.2020, the 4th respondent inspected the subject shop of the
petitioner alleging that he is not distributing the commodities
with proper weight viz., 100 gms less in respect of sugar and 100-
150 gms less in respect of R.G.Dall; the 5th respondent also
inspected the shop and found the percentage of variation of PDS
rice as 0.02% and seized the stock and handed over to one G.V.
Dhanalakshmi, who is the neighboring Fair Price shop Dealer;
according to Clause 29 of A.P. State Targetted Public Distribution
Control Order, 2018 (for short "Control Order 2018), the minor
variation in respect of single commodity upto 1.5% may be
allowed taking into consideration of transactions of one month;
the 4th respondent submitted a report to the 2nd respondent to
initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, pursuant
to which, the 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice dated
19.09.2020 (which is wrongly typed as 19.11.2020) directing the
petitioner to show cause within 7 days; the petitioner filed his
explanation on 25.09.2020, but, on the same day of issuing show
cause notice, an order has been passed suspending the
authorization of the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition is
filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a
judgment of this Court in W.P.No.13297 of 2019, dated
23.10.2019.
5. As seen from the impugned proceedings, dated
19.09.2020, suspending the authorization of the petitioner,
certain cardholders have given complaints against the petitioner
with regard to improper distribution of the commodities viz., 100
gms less in respect of sugar and 150 gms less in respect of
R.G.Dall and the percentage of variation of PDS rice shown as
0.02%. It is also alleged that the petitioner is scolding the
cardholders. The show cause notice was issued to the petitioner
on 19.09.2020 to show cause as to why his authorization should
not be cancelled. The petitioner has also submitted his
explanation on 25.09.2020 denying all the allegations made in
the complaint; and a copy of the same with acknowledgment was
also filed along with the writ petition. In his explanation, he
stated that, none of the cardholders have given complaint with
regard to the distribution of the commodities with less weight and
show cause notice also does not contain any details with regard
to the complaint given by the cardholders against him. Clause 29
of Control Order, 2018, reads as under:
29. "No prosecution shall be launched in certain
mistakes/lapses/omissions/irregularities indicated below (which are
illustrative and not exhaustive) against the Fair Price Shop Dealers.
(a) Minor variation in respect of single commodity upto 1.5% may
be allowed taking into consideration of transactions of one month.
(b) Mistake in mathematical totaling, clerical or error on account of
device and accounting errors in the maintenance of prescribed registers.
For the above irregularities, disciplinary action under the
provisions of the Order shall be initiated under this Order. In case, these
mistakes/lapses/omissions/irregularities are found to be respective and
there are reasons to believe that they are deliberate, appropriate action
including launching of prosecution shall also be initiated at the discretion
of the competent authority."
6. As seen from the said Clause, prosecution cannot be
initiated against the Dealers in case of minor variation in respect
of single commodity upto 1.5%. But it is also stated in the said
Clause, for the said irregularity, disciplinary action under the
provisions of the Control Order shall be initiated and in case the
mistakes/lapses/omissions/irregularities are found to be
repeated and the reasons thereon are deliberate, appropriate
action including launching of prosecution shall also be initiated
at the discretion of the competent authority.
7. This Court in W.P.No.13297 of 2019, dated 23.10.2019,
held that when the variation is trivial, the authorities shall not
pass order of suspension during pendency of enquiry.
8. In the present case, admittedly, the variation is 0.02%
with regard to only one commodity. The other allegations are that
the petitioner is distributing the commodities with less weight
and he is scolding the cardholders. The details of the
cardholders, who gave complaint, are not mentioned in the order
suspending the authorization and no details whatsoever have
been given to whom he distributed the commodities with less
quantity.
9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and
by following the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.13297 of 2019,
dated 23.10.2019, the impugned suspension order dated
19.09.2020 is hereby set aside as it is not warranted. However,
the respondents are at liberty to continue the disciplinary
proceedings and take appropriate action in accordance with law,
and pending enquiry, the petitioner may be permitted to supply
the essential commodities to the cardholders.
10. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is
disposed of. No costs.
As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications
shall stand closed.
_________________________________
KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J.
Date : 28-01-2021
Gvl
HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI
WRIT PETITION No.2023 of 2021
Date : 28.01.2021
Gvl
