Vankayala Raghavendra Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 4363 AP

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                         &
                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI

                      WRIT APPEAL No. 671 of 2021
                     (Hybrid hearing through video conferencing)

Vankayala Raghavendra Rao
S/o. Chandramouli, aged about 68 years,
Occ: FP Shop dealer,
Shop No.0819001, Yaddanapudi village and Mandal,
Prakasam District.                               .. Appellant

        Versus

The State of Andhra Pradesh,
rep.by its Principal Secretary,
Civil Supplies Department,
A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi,
Amaravathi, Guntur District
and others.                                                  .. Respondents

Counsel for the appellant : Ms. Kavitha Gottipati

Counsel for respondents No.1 to 3 : Ms. V.Sujatha, G.P. for Civil Supplies.

ORAL JUDGMENT Dt: 27.10.2021 (per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)

Challenging the order dated 07.09.2021 passed by the learned

single Judge in Writ Petition No.17919 of 2021, the present Writ Appeal

came to be filed.

2. In this intra-Court appeal, the appellant/writ petitioner would call

in question the order passed by the learned single Judge, wherein while

refusing to interfere with the order passed by the competent authority

on 11.08.2021, suspending the authorization of the appellant/writ

petitioner to run the Fair Price shop No.0819001 of Yaddanapudi village

and Mandal, Prakasam District, the learned single Judge has issued

directions to the respondent No.3 to complete the final enquiry initiated

against the appellant/writ petitioner as per the provisions of Clause 8(4)

of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order,

2018 (for short "Control Order") to prove the charges made against the

appellant/writ petitioner by giving full and fair opportunity to the

appellant/writ petitioner to defend his case, and the enquiry is directed

to be completed within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of

copy of the order.

3. Ms. Kavitha Gottipati, learned counsel for the appellant/writ

petitioner argues that the learned single Judge should have allowed the

appellant/writ petitioner to run the Fair Price shop during the pendency

of the enquiry. She would specifically refer to Clause 20 of the Control

Order to argue that before passing an order of suspension, the authority

is enjoined to make an enquiry under Clause 8(4) of the Control Order,

which having not been done before passing of the impugned order, a

strong case for allowing the appellant/writ petitioner to run the Fair Price

shop is made out.

4. Having seen the order dated 11.08.2021, by which the licence of

the Fair Price shop allotted to the appellant/writ petitioner has been

suspended, pending enquiry, it appears the officials of the concerned

department made a surprise inspection of the Fair Price shop and made

some enquiry, wherein the allegation of siphoning of the essential

commodities was found prima facie sufficient for proceeding further to

make an enquiry under Clause 8(4) of the Control Order. This having

been done, the mandate of Clause 8(4) of the Control Order has been

sufficiently complied with. Therefore, we find no force in the submission

made by the learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner. At the

same time, it is important to note that if the subject shop is allotted

afresh to any other individual, the same shall create complication and

appellant/writ petitioner's right would be violated, if eventually it is

found that the charges against the appellant/writ petitioner are not

proved, and therefore, instead of fresh allotment it would be appropriate

to attach the subject Fair Price shop to any other Fair Price shop during

pendency of the enquiry.

5. Accordingly, we dispose of the writ appeal directing the

competent authority not to make any fresh allotment of the subject Fair

Price shop and the same shall remain attached to any other Fair Price

shop, during pendency of the enquiry against the appellant/writ

petitioner. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall

stand closed.

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ                           A.V. SESHA SAI, J

                                                                      GM

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI

WRIT APPEAL No. 671 of 2021

(per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)

Dt: 27.10.2021

GM