Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
K Bhavani vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 7 November, 2022
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE NO.: W.P.No.35966 of 2022
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. DATE ORDER OFFICE
No. NOTE
1. 07.11.2022 CMR, J
Learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies takes
notice for respondents 1 to 4 and requests time to obtain
instructions.
List the matter after four (4) weeks.
________
CMR, J
I.A.No.1 of 2022
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.
The petitioner is a fair-price shop dealer. The Senior Civil
Supplies Revenue Inspector, Parawada, inspected the premises
of the fair-price shop of the petitioner and found that the
petitioner failed to maintain true and correct accounts relating to
the stock. He also found certain variations in the stock that is
available in the fair-price shop. Therefore, it is stated that the
petitioner has contravened the provisions of the A.P. State
Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018, and
thereby seized the above ground balance under the cover of
panchanama.
Thereafter, the Tahsildar, Parawada, made a request to
initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner, being a dealer
of fair-price shop, under the provisions of the A.P. State
Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018. The
Revenue Divisional Officer, Anakapalli, in exercise of the
powers conferred under clause 8(4) of the A.P. State Targeted
Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018, has suspended
the authorization of the petitioner as a dealer of the fair-price
shop.
The petitioner mainly challenges the legal validity of the
impugned order on the ground that the impending need to
suspend the authorization of the dealership of the petitioner as a
fair-price shop dealer has not been set out in the impugned
order of suspension. According to him, reasons are to be
assigned to show that there is impending need to place the
authorization of the dealership of the fair-price shop under
suspension. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the
petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court rendered in the
case of K. Prabhavathi v. the State of Andhra Pradesh reported
in 2020(6) ALD 209, wherein at para No.8 of the said judgment,
it is held as follows:
"8. Then, the next important aspect is that though the prior
show cause notice is not mandatory, suspension shall not be made
as a matter of course but the authority shall apply its mind in
respect of the irregularities alleged against the dealer and form an
opinion as to whether placing the dealer under suspension is
imperative and whether such suspension will help to conduct the
disciplinary enquiry in a fair manner so as to prevent the errant
dealer from meddling with the enquiry and tampering the evidence
of the complaint. The authorities shall also consider that if the
dealer is permitted to continue his dealership pending enquiry
whether there is any possibility of his continuing his misdeeds such
as black-marketing the essential commodities, not properly
distributing the commodities to the cardholders and thereby
causing inconvenience to them etc. If the authorities apprehend
that the dealer may indulge in such activities, then by giving
cogent reasons it may place the dealer under suspension pending
disciplinary enquiry. Therefore, running the risk of repetition, it
must be emphasized, though under Rule 8(4) of the Control Order,
2018 the appointing authority has power to suspend the
authorization of a dealer pending disciplinary enquiry, however
such power shall be exercised with utmost care and
circumspection."
From the perusal of the aforesaid judgment of this Court,
the legal position is made clear that it is only when there is
impending need to suspend the authorization on the grounds
that there is a possibility of the dealer to repeat commission of
the same violations and misdeeds or when he is found to be not
distributing the commodities to the cardholders promptly and
properly causing inconvenience to them and on the grounds
which are set out in the aforesaid judgment, the action to
suspend the authorization can be resorted to. As rightly
contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, as can be seen
from the impugned order, there are no reasons or grounds set
out as required under law as per the aforesaid judgment of this
Court. Therefore, the petitioner could make out a strong prima
facie case to ascertain in the main Writ Petition whether the
impugned order of suspension is legally sustainable or not.
Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case,
there shall be interim suspension of the impugned order, till the
next date of hearing.
________
CMR, J
AKN
