Smt.Inala Padmavathi, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2022 Latest Caselaw 8054 AP

                                  1




THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND


            Writ Petition No.16339 of 2022
ORDER:-

     This Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner

seeking the following relief:


           "to declare the action of the respondent

No.4 in cancellation the authorization of the petitioner F.P.Shop dealer in his Proceedings in Rc.J/1403/2014, dated 04.05.2022, even without hearing petitioner, is illegal, arbitrary, high handed, violation of principles of natural justice, in violation of Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India and also contrary to the Control Order, 2008 and consequently, direct the respondents to set aside the cancellation order of authorization of petitioner and allow the petitioner to distribute commodities to the card holders.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing

for the respondents and perused the record.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was

appointed as F.P. shop dealer for Shop No.45 of Ongole

Town, Prakasam District in the year 2009 and since then

he is distributing commodities to the card holders all

these years without any complaint either from card

holders or from authorities. On 21.09.2015, the

respondent No.5 inspected the fair price shop of the

petitioner and alleging certain irregularities seized the

stock under cover of panchanama and filed report before

the respondent No.4. Basing on the report of the 5th

respondent, the respondent No.4 suspended the

authorization of the petitioner through proceedings

Rc.J/1403/2014, dated 16.10.2014.

4. Aggrieved by the said Order, the petitioner

preferred appeal before the respondent No.3 on

29.10.2014. Since no order are passed on Stay Petition

by the respondent No.3, he approached this Court by

filing W.P.No.33494 of 2014 and this Court by Order

dated 07.11.2014 directed the respondent No.3 to

dispose of the appeal within one month. Accordingly, the

respondent No.3 remanded the matter to respondent

No.4/R.D.O., Ongole, with a direction to conduct detailed

enquiry within one month. Thereafter, the petitioner filed

a representation before respondent NO.4 on 12.08.2015

requesting to permit the petitioner for examination of

inspecting Officers, who inspected FP Shop and also

permit to examine some of the Card Holders attached to

the shop to falsify the inspection report, but the

respondent No.4 did not permit the petitioner as

requested by her. As the respondent No.4 did not finalize

the disciplinary proceedings, he approached this Court by

filing W.P.No.6380 of 2022 and this Court by Order dated

16.03.2022 directed the disciplinary authority to

complete the enquiry within a period of four weeks.

Thereafter, the petitioner again approached the

respondent No.4 by way of representation on

02.05.2022, but the respondent No.4 without considering

her representation passed the impugned Order.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present

Writ Petition.

5. The fourth respondent - Revenue Divisional Officer,

Ongole, Prakasam District, filed counter affidavit, stating

that the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Ongole-1

inspected the petitioner's fair price shop on 21.09.2014

and submitted a report to the disciplinary

authority/Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole on

22.09.2014. An inspection was conducted in the presence

of panchanamadars and as per the panchanama report,

huge variations were found during the inspection. In view

of the huge variations of stock, the petitioner was issued

show cause notice and subsequently, suspended

authorization of her dealership vide Rc.No.J/1403/2014

dated 16.10.2014 pending finalization of disciplinary

proceedings. It is stated that, the petitioner did not

submit any representation to examine the inspecting

officers who inspected the petitioner's fair price shop is

incorrect.

6. It is further stated that the petitioner filed

W.P.No.6380 of 2022 before this Court, wherein, this

Court directed the disciplinary authority to complete the

enquiry within four weeks therefrom. It was also made

clear that, if no temporary dealer is appointed to the

subject shop, the respondents are directed to supply the

commodities to the petitioner, pending disposal of the

enquiry.

7. In view of the direction of this Court, the petitioner

submitted representation dated 20.04.2022 before the

Revenue Divisional Officer, requesting for allotment of

essential commodities. In reply, she was informed that,

in the light of the orders of this Court, a temporary

dealer was appointed to the subject fair price shop and

denied to supply the essential commodities. It is

submitted that, enquiry was completed in the disciplinary

proceedings and orders were passed by the Revenue

Divisional Officer on 04.05.2022 within the time

stipulated by this Court. It is also submitted that, the

petitioner was informed about the appeal provision

before the Appellate Authority, but without exhausting

the Appeal provision, the petitioner directly approached

this Court.

8. The petitioner filed reply to the counter affidavit

filed by the fourth respondent, stating that the Revenue

Divisional Officer has not conducted any disciplinary

proceedings and did not even consider the petitioner's

representations dated 12.08.2015 and 02.05.2022 and

passed the impugned order, without following principles

of natural justice and requested to grant relief as prayed

in the writ petition.

9. On careful perusal of the Proceedings of the

respondent No.4, dated 04.05.2022, it appears that the

fair price shop of the petitioner was inspected by the

Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Ongole Urban, along with

the Vigilance CI and his staff and alleging certain

irregularities committed by the Fair Price Shop dealer

registered a case under Section 6-A of the E.C. Act,

1955, for contravention of the provisions of the

A.P.S.P.D.S Control Order, 2008. The stocks available in

the shop were seized under a cover of Mediator's Report

and handed over the same to the neighbouring Fair Price

Shop dealer for safe custody. A report was submitted to

the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, to initiate

necessary action against the delinquent dealer. Basing on

the Inspection Report, the respondent No.4 prima facie

satisfied that the petitioner has committed irregularities

in distribution of essential commodities to the card

holders and diverted the same into the black market and

accordingly, passed the Order for suspension of

authorization of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same,

the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate

Authority and the appellate authority passed Orders on

14.07.2015 remanding the matter to the respondent

No.4 with a direction to finalise the disciplinary

proceedings within two weeks from the date of receipt of

the orders by giving affordable opportunity to the dealer.

It is stated in the impugned Order that the dealer was

given affordable opportunity and the petitioner and her

counsel have attended the enquiry. In the show cause

notice, the respondent No.4 framed three charges

against the petitioner. The petitioner has submitted her

explanation. Considering the same, the respondent No.4

found that all the charges are held proved and

accordingly, the authorization of the petitioner is

cancelled.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently

contended that the petitioner filed representation on

12.08.2015 before the respondent No.4 and requested to

permit her for examination of Inspecting Officials, who

inspected her fair price shop and also permit to examine

some of the card holders attached to the shop to falsify

the inspection report. But, the respondent No.4 did not

permit her to examine them. The petitioner again filed a

Representation on 02.05.2022 requesting to permit her

for examination of the inspecting officials and some of

the card holders, but the respondent No.4 without

considering the request of the petitioner and without

following the procedure passed the impugned Order of

cancellation of authorization of the petitioner. The

learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that

the order of cancellation of authorization of the

petitioner's fair price shop passed by the respondent

No.4 without following the due process of law and as

such it is unsustainable under law and sought to set

aside the same by allowing the Writ Petition.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a Order

of this Court in B. Manjula vs. District Collector, Civil

Supplies, Kurnool and others 1 . This Court carefully

perused the said Order. The learned Single Judge of this

Court after considering several orders passed by this

Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the

procedure to be followed by the authorities to conduct

enquiry and to pass orders in disciplinary proceedings. In

the said judgment at paragraph No.9 to 11 held as

under:

"9. This Court is conscious of the fact that the law discussed above was laid down by the Courts in the context of disciplinary proceedings against Government servants and it may not be possible to adhere to the same rigors of procedure in an enquiry against a fair price shop dealer. However, this Court is of the considered opinion that since an order of cancellation of fair price shop visits the dealer with adverse consequences, the appointing authority must adhere to the fundamental ingredients of an enquiry. The enquiry need not be too elaborate as in the case of a disciplinary proceeding against a Government servant, but it shall follow the basic requirement of an enquiry which in my view must be as described infra.

10. An „enquiry‟ pre-supposes an opportunity of personal hearing to the dealer to explain his/her case based on the records such as sales and stock registers. If need be, such enquiry must also include recording the sworn statement of the dealer and witnesses, if any, from his/her side. In cases where either card holders or other persons sent any complaint, they must also be examined in the presence of the dealer or his/her lawyer and the dealer shall be given an opportunity of cross- examining such persons.

2015 (4) ALT 572

The licencing /disciplinary authority shall also supply to the dealer all the reports on which he is likely to place reliance to the detriment of the dealer. Unless the dealer has no explanation at all to offer, the licensing/disciplinary authority is bound to hold a detailed enquiry.

11. The experience of this Court reveals that the appointing authorities of fair price shop dealers are dispensing with the requirement of making personal enquiry by summoning the dealers. They are merely relying upon the reports sent by their subordinates i.e., Deputy Tahsildars and Tahsildars, behind the back of the dealers and resting their decisions solely upon those reports. This procedure is anathema to the concept of enquiry which otherwise means affording the dealer an opportunity of a fair hearing."

12. In the present case, though the petitioner made

representations twice requesting the respondent No.4 to

permit the petitioner to examine the inspecting officials

and some of the card holders, the said request was not

considered and thereby the respondent No.4 failed to

hold a detailed enquiry, which amounts to not affording

the dealer an opportunity of a fair hearing.

13. A perusal of the impugned Order shows that the

respondent No.4 has not even attempted to hold an

enquiry by permitting the petitioner to examine the

inspecting officials and some of the card holders. The

respondent No.4 simply relying on the report of the

inspecting officials concluded the disciplinary

proceedings. It is further to be noted that, it is evident

on perusal of the impugned order that no reasons are

recorded by the respondent No.4 to come to a conclusion

to cancel the authorization of the petitioner.

14. In G. Vallikumari Vs. Andhra Education Society

and others 2 , the Supreme Court held at para-19 as

follows:

" The requirement of recording reasons by every quasi- judicial or even an administrative authority entrusted with the task of passing an order adversely affecting an individual and communication thereof to the affected person is one of the recognised facets of the rules of natural justice and violation thereof has the effect of vitiating the order passed by the authority concerned".

(2010) 2 SCC 497

15. In view of the above said reasons, as the

respondent No.4 failed to follow the procedure to conduct

disciplinary enquiry, in our view, the impugned order

cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly liable to

be set aside.

16. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed with the

following directions:

i) Rc.J/1403/2014, dated 04.05.2022 of the

respondent No.4 is set aside and the authorization of the

petitioner is restored; and

ii) the respondent No.4 is directed to permit the

petitioner to function as Fair Price Shop dealer as usual.

17. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this case shall stand closed.

                                           ________________________________
                                           JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
Date :        .10.2022


eha

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

WP No. 16339 of 2022

Date : -10-2022

eha