Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Smt. N. Nagamani vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 6 May, 2021
Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION No.9383 OF 2021
ORDER:-
This petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:-
"... to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ order or
direction, declaring the action of the respondents in not supplying the
essential commodities to petitioner's Fair Price Shop No.0742007 of
Ghantavaripalem village, Savalyapuram Mandal, Guntur District, as
illegal and arbitrary and issue consequential direction to the respondents
to supply essential commodities to petitioner's Fair Price Shop
No.0742007 of Ghantavaripalem village forthwith and pass such other
orders...."
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as
Fair Price Shop Dealer for the Shop No.0742007 of
Ghantavaripalem village, Savalyapuram Mandal, Guntur District
on 12.09.2011. Since the date of appointment, he has been
distributing the essential commodities to the cardholders without
any complaint so far. On 25.02.2021, the Fair Price Shop of the
petitioner was inspected by the respondent authorities and found
everything in order.
3. Again on 24.03.2021, the petitioner's Fair Price shop was
inspected and seized the stock by the respondent authorities, and
after inspection, the respondents discontinued the supply of
essential commodities to the petitioner's Fair Price Shop without
there being any suspension or cancellation of authorization
exercising the power under Clause 8(4) of the A.P. State Targeted
(Public Distribution System) Control order, 2018 (for short "Control
Order 2018").
4. The main grievance of the petitioner before this Court is
that in the absence of any order of suspension or termination of
the authorization of this petitioner exercising the power under
Clause 8(4) of Control Order 2018, the respondents are bound to
supply the essential commodities to the petitioner's shop for
distributing the same to the cardholders allotted to his shop. The
petitioner also raised several contentions which are not relevant for
deciding the present issue as the issue involved in this case is
limited in view of the law declared by the Full Bench of this Court
in Oleti Tirupathamma vs District Supply Officer (City)1 .
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing
for the respondents.
6. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner
reiterated the contentions. Whereas, the respondents did not file
any counter, but submitted that, a show cause notice was issued
to the petitioner calling for explanation before passing appropriate
order. But till date, no explanation was submitted by the
petitioner. Therefore, taking advantage of latches on the part of
the petitioner, the petition is filed, thereby the question of
supplying the essential commodities to the petitioner's shop
does not arise and requested to dismiss the Writ Petition.
7. As seen from the material on record, undoubtedly, an
inspection was conducted by the respondent authorities and seized
the stock under the cover of Panchanama, but no order of
2002 (1) ALD 577
suspension or termination of authorization by exercising the power
under Clause 8(4) of Control Order 2018 is passed till date.
8. It is the case of the respondents that when disciplinary
proceedings are initiated against this petitioner, only a show cause
notice was issued calling for explanation of this petitioner, but no
explanation was submitted by the petitioner so far. Therefore, the
respondents did not dispute the seizure of the commodities etc.
But the undisputed fact is that no order of suspension or
termination of authorization of this petitioner exercising power
under Clause 8(4) of Control Order 2018 is passed as on date. In
the absence of any order under Clause 8(4) of Control Order 2018,
the 2nd respondent is bound to supply the essential commodities to
the petitioner for distributing the same to the cardholders allotted
to his shop in view of law declared by the full bench of this Court
in Oleti Tirupatamma's case referred supra, where the full
bench of this court held that "stoppage of essential commodities
without suspending the license of this petitioner is not justified."
9. In the facts of the above Judgment, the authorization
was expired and therefore the Court declined to issue a direction
for supply of essential commodities. In the present case, the
authorization is subsisting and no suspension or termination of
authorization was passed under Clause 8(4) of Control Order,
2018. Thereby, the respondents are bound to supply essential
commodities to the shop of this petitioner to distribute the same
to the cardholders allotted to his shop, subject to payment of
price of the essential commodities. The action of the respondent
is contrary to the law laid down by the full bench of this Court
and consequently, I find that the direction be issued to supply of
essential commodities to the petitioner's shop No.0742007 of
Ghantavaripalem village, Savalyapuram Mandal, Guntur District,
till passing appropriate orders under Clause 8(4) of Control Order
2018 or final order in the disciplinary proceedings under Clause
20(2) of Control Order 2018, in accordance with law.
10. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of
at the stage of admission with the consent of both the parties.
However, this order will not preclude the respondents to take
appropriate action either under Clause 8(4) or 20(2) of Control
Order, 2018. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition
shall stand closed.
_________________________________________
JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
Date : 06-05-2021
Gvl
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION No.9383 OF 2021
Date : 06.05.2021
Gvl
