Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Yelabolu Sambasiva Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 16 September, 2021
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE No. W.P.No.20173 of 2021
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. DATE ORDER OFFICE
No. NOTE
02. 16.09.2021 MGR, J
Notice before admission.
Learned Assistant Government
Pleader for Civil Supplies takes notice,
waives further notice and seeks time to file
counter.
Leaned counsel for the petitioner
states that the petitioner was appointed as
Fair Price Shop Dealer of FP Shop
No.0742018 of Pitchikalapalem village,
Savalyapuram Mandal on 9.8.2002 and
his authorisation is in subsistence. The
Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar,
Vinukonda, Mandal Revenue Inspector,
Savalyapuram and Village Revenue Officer,
Pitchikalapalem inspected the petitioner's
Fair Price Shop on 15.5.2021. During
inspection they could not notice any
irregularities but prepared a
Mediatornama showing some variations in
the stocks. Thereafter, no disciplinary
proceedings were initiated against the
petitioner for the alleged irregularities as
per the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh
State Targetted Public Distribution System
(Control) Order 2018. But, the respondent
authorities arbitrarily without any notice
or opportunity to the petitioner stopped
supplying essential commodities to the
Fair Price Shop for supply of the same to
the cardholders, which is illegal and
arbitrary. He further states that supply of
essential commodities to the petitioner's
Fair Price Shop was stopped during the
subsistence of the petitioner's
authorisation to run the shop, without any
suspension or cancellation, which is illegal
and arbitrary. He relied upon the
judgment of this Court in the case of
Voleti Tiruputhamma v. District Supply
Officer (City), reported in 2002 (1) ALT
216, wherein this Court held that without
suspension or cancellation of
authorisation, non supply of essential
commodities is bad and illegal.
Learned Assistant Government
Pleader appearing for the respondents
states that the petitioner's authorisation
was suspended on 31.5.2021, but the
same is not served on the petitioner and
no disciplinary proceedings are initiated
against the petitioner. He further submits
that the respondent authorities ought to
have completed the enquiry within 90 days
from the date of suspension order as per
the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State
Targetted Public Distribution System
(Control) Order 2018.
Having regard to the above
submissions of the learned counsel for the
petitioner and having perused the record,
this Court found that having passed the
suspension order and not serving the same
on the petitioner is to be deemed that no
order is passed against the petitioner and
the respondents ought to have completed
enquiry as per the provisions of the
Control Order, 2018 within a period of 90
days from the date of suspension and non
supply of essential commodities to the
petitioner's Fair Price Shop for supplying
the same to cardholders is per se illegal
and contrary to the provisions of the
Control Order, 2018 and the petitioner is
entitled to be supplied the essential
commodities. The petitioner has shown
sufficient cause for granting of interim
direction.
Accordingly, there shall be an
interim direction to the respondents to
supply the essential commodities to the
petitioner's Fair Price Shop for supplying
the same to the cardholders forthwith,
without reference to the suspension order
said to have been passed on 31.5.2021.
Post on 11.11.2021.
________
MGR, J
CSR
