R Rambabu vs The State Of Ap
2023 Latest Caselaw 5825 AP

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

R Rambabu vs The State Of Ap on 6 December, 2023

Author: R. Raghunandan Rao

Bench: R. Raghunandan Rao

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                   &
           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

      WRIT APPEAL No.889 of 2023 & W.P.No.14097 of 2023

Between:

R. Rambabu, S/o.Ramakrishnappa,
Age 47 years, Occ: F.P Shop Dealer of
Shop No.1062018, Suddulakuppam Village,
Venkatagirikota Mandal,
Chittoor District.
                                      ...Appellant in W.A.No.889
                                       of 2023 and Petitioner in
                                          W.P.No.14097 of 2023

                                 Versus

The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep.by its Principal Secretary
Civil Supplies Department,
Secretariat, Velagapudi,
Guntur District and 3 others.

                                           ...Respondents in
                                           W.A.No.889 of 2023 and
                                           W.P.No.14097 of 2023


Counsel for the Appellant                 : Mr.M.M.M. Srinivasa Rao

Counsel for respondents Nos.1 to 4        : Government Pleader for
                                            Civil Supplies


                             JUDGMENT

Dt: 06.12.2023

(per Hon'ble Sri Justice R.Raghunandan Rao)

HCJ&RRR,J W.A. No.889 of 2023 &

A common order is being passed for disposing of both these

proceedings as they arise out of the same transactions and have

been filed by the same petitioner.

1. Heard Sri M.M.M. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the

appellant and the Petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader

for Civil Supplies.

2. The petitioner was the Fair Price Shop Dealer for Fair

Price Shop No.1062018, Suddulakuppam Village, Venkatagiri Kota

Mandal, Chittoor District. The shop of the petitioner was inspected,

on 20.04.2023, by the Deputy Tahsildar, Venkatagiri Kota along

with Vigilance and Enforcement Authorities. A report was drawn up

and submitted to the RDO, Palamaner Division, Chittoor District and

the Collector (CS) of Chittoor District on 21.04.2023 stating that

there was variation of 4,480 kgs of rice and 113 packets of sugar in

the stocks, maintained by the petitioner in the fair price shop. A

show cause notice dated 26.04.2023 was issued by the RDO, calling

upon the petitioner to show cause why disciplinary action should

not be taken against the petitioner under the Andhra Pradesh

Targetted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 (herein

after referred as 'the Control Order'). A period of seven days was

given to the petitioner for giving his explanation. The petitioner is

HCJ&RRR,J W.A. No.889 of 2023 &

said to have given an explanation on 28.04.2023 contending that

the stocks were stored in two rooms and the necessary staff had

verified the stock in one room only. He further contended that the

inspection was carried out in his absence and there was nobody to

show the second room to the inspecting staff. The R.D.O, pending

further enquiry, passed an order of suspension of the fair price shop

dealership of the petitioner on 15.05.2023 vide

ROC.No.E/843/2023. Aggrieved by the said order of suspension, the

petitioner moved this Court by way of W.P.No.14097 of 2023. The

petitioner raised the contention that the second room in which the

stock had been stored had not been inspected. Apart from this

contention, the petitioner also raised an additional contention in the

affidavit filed in I.A.No.2 of 2023 that the inspecting staff had

wrongly mentioned the variation in stock, as the supply of sortex

rice to the M.P.P School, Suddulakuppam, by the petitioner, had not

been taken into account. The learned single judge, in order to

ascertain the facts, had appointed an Advocate Commissioner and

on the basis of the report of the Advocate Commissioner and the

letter said to have been given by the Principal of the school, had

stayed all further proceedings pursuant to the order of the Revenue

Divisional Officer dated 15.05.2023 and also directed continuation

of the petitioner as dealer of the fair price shop. Subsequently,

HCJ&RRR,J W.A. No.889 of 2023 &

I.A.No.3 of 2023 was filed by the official respondents in which a

circular letter was submitted, from the Principal of the school

stating that there are only 32 pupils in the school and that the

school had never been supplied 1190.979 kgs of rice, as claimed by

the writ petitioner. On this basis, the earlier order dated 13.07.2023

was vacated. Aggrieved by the said orders, the writ petitioner had

approached this Court, by way of W.A.No.889 of 2023 contending

that the initial order of 13.07.2023 was an order where I.A.No.1 of

2023 had been allowed and consequently the said order could not be

vacated, by the learned single judge, by the order dated 23.08.2023.

3. As the writ petition was also pending before the High

Court, the said writ petition was called to this Court and both the

Writ Appeal and Writ Petition were taken up together.

4. In the Writ Petition, Sri M.M.M. Srinivasa Rao, contends

that the disciplinary proceedings under the Control Order, 2018 can

be conducted only under clause 20(1) of the Control Order. This

provision requires a separate report to be filed, apart from a report

under Section 6-A(i) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for

initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the dealer. He submits

that this provision has been considered by a learned single judge in

his judgment dated 08.01.2020 in W.P.No.500 of 2020 wherein the

HCJ&RRR,J W.A. No.889 of 2023 &

learned single judge had held that as and when discrepancies are

found in any fair price shop, two parallel proceedings are normally

initiated. The said two proceedings are under Section 6-A of the

Essential Commodities Act, for seizure and confiscation of the

stocks in question and disciplinary proceedings under Clause 20(i)

of the Control Order, 2018. The learned single judge held that as

Clause 20 (1) of the Control Order require a separate report to be

filed for initiation of disciplinary proceedings, any such proceedings

initiated on the basis of the report given under Section 6-A of the

Essential Commodities Act would have to be treated as being

violative of Clause 20(1) of the Control Order and would have to be

set aside.

5. In the present case, two reports were sent on

21.04.2023. One report was sent to the District Collector (CS) for

action under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act and

another report bearing the same date was sent to the Revenue

Divisional Officer, who is the Disciplinary Officer under the Control

Order. A perusal of the report sent to the Revenue Divisional Officer

shows that the provision of law mentioned in the report is Section 6-

A of the Essential Commodities Act. It is on account of the mention

HCJ&RRR,J W.A. No.889 of 2023 &

of this provision of law that Sri M.M.M. Srinivasa Rao would

contend that the proceedings would have to be set aside.

6. While it is true that the report sent to the R.D.O

mentions Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, it is not

necessary that the said report should be treated only as a report

under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act. Such a report

needs to be sent to the Collector for initiating proceedings under

Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act. There is no need for

such a report to be sent to the RDO. The fact that such a report was

sent to the RDO would show that the report was sent for the purpose

of initiating action under the provisions of the Control Order. Mere

mention of a wrong provision of law would not invalidate the

proceedings when the power for issuance of such a report can be

traced to any other provision of law. {K.K. Parmar and Ors vs. H.C.

of Gujarat through Registrar and Ors1 and N. Mani vs. Sangeetha

Theatre and Ors2}

7. In the circumstances, the contention of the petitioner

regarding the violation of Clause 20(1) of the Control Order would

have to be rejected.

(2006) 5 SCC 789

(2004) 12 SCC 278

HCJ&RRR,J W.A. No.889 of 2023 &

8. The petitioner also relied upon a judgment of the learned

single judge of this Court in K. Prabhavathi vs. State of Andhra

Pradesh3 to contend that suspension of a fair price shop dealer

cannot be ordered merely on the report of the inspecting staff

claiming variation in stock. In the present case, the order of

suspension dated 15.05.2023 was issued after taking into account

the reports of the inspecting staff and the explanation offered by the

petitioner. The R.D.O took the view that the explanation given by

the petitioner that the stock was available in the second room

cannot be accepted as the said statement was made much later.

9. In the circumstances, this Court does not find any

violation of the provisions of the Control Order in relation to the

suspension of the petitioner as a fair price shop dealer and the Writ

Petition is accordingly, dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the

Writ Petition, the Writ Appeal would also not survive and is

accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall

stand closed.

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J RJS

2020 (6) ALD 209

HCJ&RRR,J W.A. No.889 of 2023 &

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

WRIT APPEAL No.889 of 2023 & W.P.No.14097 of 2023

(per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

Dt: 06.12.2023

RJS