V. Madhu vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 8055 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

             WRIT PETITION No.10770 of 2022

O R D E R:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and perused

the material available on record.

2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner is the Fair

Price Shop dealer of the shop bearing No.1151020 of

Vankamarri Village, Sri Avadutha Kasinayana Mandal, YSR

Kadapa District. He is running the Fair Price Shop and

distributing the essential commodities to the satisfaction of

the card holders without any complaint. On 11.07.2019, the

respondent No.3 issued an Order in Ref.No.1(4)/490/2019,

dated 11.07.2019, suspending the authorization of the

petitioner on the ground that he has committed

irregularities in distribution of essential commodities to the

card holders. The said Order was received by the petitioner

on 19.07.2019. Aggrieved by the suspension Order dated

11.07.2019, the petitioner approached the High Court by

filing W.P.No.12885 of 2019. By Order dated 18.07.2019,

the said Writ Petition was disposed of directing the

petitioner to submit his explanation against the impugned

Order dated 11.07.2019 by treating the same as show

cause notice within a period of two weeks from the date of

receipt of a copy of this Order. In such event, the

respondent No.2 shall consider the same and pass

appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of

two weeks from the date of receipt of explanation by the

petitioner. Till such exercise is undertaken, the respondent

authorities shall permit the petitioner to run his Fair Price

Shop and allot essential commodities on payment of the

stipulated amount as per the rules. Pursuant to the said

Order, the authorization of the petitioner was restored by

the respondent No.3 on 02.10.2019. Thereafter, the

respondent No.3 passed the Order in

Ref.No.1(4)/490/2019, dated 13.01.2020, cancelling the

authorization of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the

petitioner preferred an appeal before the Respondent No.2.

The respondent No.2, without following due procedure,

passed the impugned Order by confirming the Order of the

Respondent No.3. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ

Petition is filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that all

the allegations leveled against the petitioner are false and

incorrect and he did not violate any of the rules or

provisions. Learned counsel further contends that the report

of the Tahsildar i.e., the respondent No.5 herein, which

formed the basis of the charges was not supplied to the

petitioner, which is in violative of principles of natural

justice and contrary to the Control Order, 2018. He further

contends that the charges/allegations are purported to be

invented at the instance of the opponent group who are

politically inimical towards the petitioner with a view to get

the F.P. shop in their favour. The respondent No.2 passed

the impugned Order without taking into consideration the

explanation submitted by the petitioner. Learned counsel

contends that proper enquiry is required under law before

passing the cancellation order, which is not followed by the

respondent No.3 and passed the impugned Order of

cancellation in mechanical way and the respondent No.2

also without considering the grounds raised in the appeal in

a casual manner confirmed the Order of the Respondent

No.3.

4. A counter Affidavit has been filed on behalf of the

respondents. In the Counter Affidavit filed by the

respondent No.3, it is averred that Sri D.C. Govinda Reddy,

MLC, Badvel, has filed a complaint against the petitioner

stating that he is committed certain irregularities in

distribution of essential commodities and causing

inconvenience to the card holders. On receipt of the said

complaint, the Mandal Revenue Inspector along with Village

Revenue Officer, Venkamarri Village, have inspected the fair

price shop of the petitioner on 19.06.2019 and found

certain irregularities like distribution of less quantity of

essential commodities to the card holders, collecting of

higher rates than the prescribed prices, and also failed to

display the information on the Notice Board at the F.P.

shop. Basing on the said report, the respondent No.5

submitted a detailed report to the respondent No.3,

recommending for disciplinary action against the petitioner.

Basing on the report of the respondent No.5, the

authorization of the petitioner was suspended on

11.07.2019. Pursuant to the Order dated 11.09.2019 in

W.P.No.12885 of 2019, the petitioner was permitted to run

the fair price shop by Order dated 02.10.2019.

5. The learned counsel submits that after giving an

opportunity to the petitioner, the authorization of the

petitioner was cancelled by Proceedings dated 13.01.2020.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before

the Respondent No.2 on 10.02.2020 and after hearing the

petitioner, the respondent No.2 has passed Orders on

03.03.2022 confirming the order of the respondent No.3.

The learned Government Pleader contends that the Order

dated 03.03.2022 passed by the Respondent No.2 are in

accordance with law in 10 (d), 12 (1), 12 (m) and 12 (n) of

the A.P.S.T.P.D.S (Control) Order, 2018 and sought to

dismiss the Writ Petition.

6. Having heard the submissions of the respective

counsel and on perusal of the material available on record,

it is an admitted fact that basing on the complaint made by

the local MLC, the shop of the petitioner was inspected on

19.06.2019 and seized the stocks available in the shop and

submitted a report to the respondent No.3 under a cover of

Mediator's Report. Thereafter, the respondent No.3

suspended the authorization of the petitioner and the same

was set aside by this Court by Order dated 11.09.2029 in

W.P.No.12885 of 2019 by restoring the authorization of the

petitioner and again it was cancelled by Order dated

13.01.2020. In an appeal filed against the said Order of

cancellation of authorization, the respondent No.2 has

confirmed the Order of the Respondent No.3. On careful

examination of the Order passed by the Respondent No.3, it

appears the procedure provided under law to conduct

disciplinary proceedings against the allegations made

against the Fair Price Shop dealer is not followed. The

explanation submitted by the petitioner to the show cause

notice also not properly considered. There is no any

reasons recorded with regard to the consideration of the

explanation submitted by the petitioner for the show cause

notice.

7. In B. Manjula vs. District Collector, Civil Supplies,

Kurnool and others1, 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

2015 (4) ALT 572

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. 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."

8. Considering all these aspects, it appears that, as

originally the inspection was made basing on the complaint

of the local MLC, it is to be believed that at the political

instance only, the so-called inspection was made and basing

on the report of the inspection officials, the authorization of

the petitioner was cancelled. Therefore, in our view, the

Order passed by the Respondent No.3 cancelling the

authorization of the petitioner is passed without following

the procedure to be followed in disciplinary enquiries and as

such, it is illegal, arbitrary and unjust. In the Order of the

Appellate Authority/Respondent No.2 also, the Respondent

No.2 did not record any valid reasons for not considering

the appeal filed by the petitioner and to confirm the orders

of the respondent No.3. Therefore, it appears, in a

mechanical way these orders are passed which are

unsustainable under law. Therefore, the Order passed by

the Respondent No.3, which was confirmed by the

Respondent No.2 is liable to be set aside.

9. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition is disposed of

with the following directions:

i) The Proceedings in Ref.No.1(4)/490/2019, dated

13.01.2010 of the respondent No.3, which was confirmed

by the Respondent No.2 vide Proceedings in

Ref.No.1(3)/79/2020, is set aside; and

ii) The respondents are directed to continue the

petitioner as Fair Price Shop Dealer as usual.

10. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,

shall stand closed.

                              ______________________
                              JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND


Date:         .10.2022


eha





      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND




          WRIT PETITION No.10770 of 2022




                      Dt.    .10.2022




eha