Chennam Venkata Siva Prasad vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 4122 AP

          HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

                     Writ Petition No.8937 of 2021

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed questioning the impugned proceedings

dated 04.11.2020 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur, suspending

the authorisation of the petitioner as fair price shop dealer pending

enquiry as per Clause 8(4) of A.P. State Targeted Public Distribution

(Control) Order, 2018 (for short 'Control Order, 2018').

Case of the petitioner is that, he was appointed as fair price shop

dealer in the year 1992 for the shop No.0781067 of Guntur Town on

permanent basis and due to change of the ruling party in Government,

the local leaders have brought pressure on him to submit resignation but

he refused to do so; while so, on 06.10.2020, subject fair price shop was

inspected by the civil supplies authorities and they could not find any

variations in the stocks and there is no other irregularity; in spite of the

same, they alleged variations in the stocks and the Mandal Revenue

Inspector submitted a report to the 2nd respondent on 20.10.2020

recommending disciplinary action and based on the same, the 2nd

respondent issued show cause notice dated 04.11.2020 with the

following charges:

1. Charge No.I. That the F.P. Shop Dealer failed to distribute the stocks to the cardholders properly which lead to excess of (+) 3034.121 Kgs of PDS Rice, (+) 4.97 Kgs of R.G.Dall, (-) 15.00 Kgs of channa whole, (-) 0.945 sugar and (-) 0.22 of salt with reference to ground stocks and Epos device report. Thus he violated Cl.12(3) of APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018.

2. Charge No.II. That the F.P. Shop dealer indulged in clandestine business and kept the excess stocks in the shop as shown above without distributing to the card holders with an intention to divert the same into black market for his personal gain Thus, he violated Cl.21(c) of APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018.

KVL, J WP No.8937 of 2021

On the same day, impugned order suspending the authorisation was

passed without conducting any enquiry; the alleged variations in the

stocks are fictitious and not based on actual records; the impugned

order does not show as to what are the actual stocks supplied to the

petitioner, what are the opening balances, what are the sales and what

is the balance as per Epos machine. According to rule 8(4) of the Control

Order, 2018, it is mandatory on the part of the 2nd respondent to

conduct enquiry even for placing the authorisation under suspension and

the same was held in WP No.3112 of 2020 dated 14.02.2020; the report

dated 20.10.2020 submitted by the Mandal Revenue Inspector was not

furnished to the petitioner and though the authorisation was suspended

on 04.11.2020, till date no enquiry is conducted. Hence, the writ

petition.

When the writ petition came up for admission on 03.05.2021, this

Court passed the following interim order.

"For the reasons stated in the supporting affidavit, the order of suspension vide proceeding Rc.No.2995/2020-B, dated 04.11.2020 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur is hereby suspended on the ground that there is a lot of variation between the stock available and the stock alleged to have been seized."

Counter-affidavit along with the vacate petition was filed by the

Revenue Divisional Officer stating inter-alia that the petitioner has

violated Clause12(3) of the Control Order, 2018 for not maintaining the

records properly and that there is excess of 3034.121 Kgs of PDS Rice,

shortage of 0.945 sugar, excess of 4.97 kgs of R.G.Dall, shortage of 0.22 of salt

and shortage of 15.00 kgs channa whole between the ground stocks and e-

Pos device report; petitioner has got alternative remedy of appeal

KVL, J WP No.8937 of 2021

before the Appellate Authority; the panchanama clearly establishes that

the petitioner has violated Clause10(f)(g)(r) of the Control Order, 2018.

Reply-affidavit has been filed by the petitioner denying the

contents of the counter-affidavit and stating that false panchanama has

been prepared showing the variation in stock.

Heard Sri D.Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and

the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.

The impugned order is only a suspension pending enquiry. The

judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in WP

No.3112 of 2020 does not apply to the facts of the present case. The

impugned order in the said case is an order terminating the authorisation

of the fair price shop dealer without conducting any enquiry. The issue

therein was whether the competent authority is bound to issue show

cause notice to the petitioner and conduct enquiry before passing the

termination order based on Clause 8(4) of the Control Order, 2018. The

said clause reads as follows:

"(4) The appointing authority may, at any time in the public interest or on suo-motu or on receipt of complaint, after making such enquiry as may be deemed necessary and for reasons to be recorded in writing, suspend or cancel the authorisation issued or deemed to be issued to him/her under this clause."

Basing on the said clause, it was held that 'conducting of enquiry is sine

quo non for suspension or cancellation of authorisation. But the

suspension, according to the said clause 8(4), is a suspension as a

measure of punishment and not a suspension pending enquiry and in the

present case, as the suspension is pending enquiry and not as a measure

of punishment, there is no need to issue show cause notice'.

KVL, J WP No.8937 of 2021

In the case on hand, show cause notice was issued on the same

day on which the suspension order was passed to show cause as to why

authorisation should not be cancelled. Whether there is any variation in

the stock or not, is a subject matter of enquiry and this Court cannot go

into the same. Even though learned counsel for the petitioner contended

that the report of the Mandal Revenue Inspector was not served on the

petitioner, he fairly concedes that copy of the same is enclosed to the

counter-affidavit. He also contended that the mediatornama was not

supplied to the petitioner, but the copy of the same is also enclosed to

the counter-affidavit. As the show cause notice was already issued to

the petitioner to show cause as to why his authorisation should not be

cancelled, the petitioner is given liberty to submit his explanation to the

show cause that was already issued to him, within a period of two weeks

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, raising all the

contentions that were raised before this Court and basing on the

explanation that will be submitted by the petitioner, the Competent

Authority is directed to conduct enquiry after giving reasonable

opportunity the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon strictly

in accordance with law. As there is an interim direction pending writ

petition, the respondents are directed to supply the essential

commodities to the petitioner's fair price shop, pending enquiry.

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to

costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in this writ

petition, shall stand closed.

_______________________ KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J Date: 21.10.2021 BSS

KVL, J WP No.8937 of 2021

KVL, J WP No.8937 of 2021

HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

Writ Petition No.8937 of 2021

Date: 21.10.2021

BSS