B.Ghouse Bee vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 1147 AP

    IN THE COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
                             &
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

                 WRIT APPEAL No.779 of 2022
                        (Through physical mode)

Smt. B. Ghouse Bee, W/o.Late B.Abdul Ahad,
aged about 64 years,
Occupation: Fair Price Shop Dealer (Under cancellation),
Shop No.5, R/o.H.No.2/259,
Bharpet, Adoni-518301 (A.P.),
Krunool District.                           ...Appellant

    Versus

State of Andrha Pradesh,
Rep.by Principal Secretary,
Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat,
Velagapudi, Guntur District,
A.P., and others.                                 ...Respondents

ORAL JUDGMENT Dt:27.02.2023 (per Hon'ble Sri Justice R.Raghunandan Rao)

The appellant was appointed as fair price shop dealer for

shop No.5 of Adoni Town in the year 1995 and continued till her

dealership was terminated on 29.06.2015.

2. In the year 2015, an enquiry is said to have been

conducted by the 5th respondent in relation to irregularities in

11 fair price shop dealers in Adoni Town. An enquiry report, in

this regard was submitted on 20.12.2014 by the 5th respondent.

HCJ&RRR,J W.A.No.779 of 2022

On the basis of this report, a show cause notice was issued to

the appellant to show cause why her dealership should not be

terminated. This notice had set out seven charges against the

appellant. These charges were primarily on the question of

seeding of Aadhaar cards for obtaining bogus ration cards and

white ration cards and subsequent drawing of ration on these

bogus ration cards and diversion of the ration to the black

market.

3. The 4th respondent after considering the explanation

given by the appellant and after conducting an enquiry had

cancelled the authorization of the appellant by an order dated

29.06.2015.

4. The appellant filed an appeal before the 3rd

respondent, against the order dated 29.06.2015. This appeal

was dismissed on 01.09.2016. Thereupon, the appellant filed a

revision before the 2nd respondent on 28.09.2016 and

approached this Court, for an early disposal of the revision, by

way of W.P.No.12606 of 2020 which was disposed of on

29.07.2020 with a direction for expeditious disposal of the

revision, within a period of four weeks, from the date of receipt

of the order.

HCJ&RRR,J W.A.No.779 of 2022

5. The revision filed by the appellant was dismissed on

15.10.2020. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the

appellant approached this Court by way of W.P.No.2116 of 2020

which was dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court on

14.07.2021. The present appeal has been filed against the

judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 14.07.2021.

6. The case against the appellant was that she was

involved in the seeding of Aadhaar cards for the purposes of

obtaining and diverting PDS rations to the black market. The

specific allegation against the appellant was that she had

collected the Xerox copies of all the Aadhaar from the card

holder and had misused the said information for obtaining

bogus ration cards. Her explanation that the cards obtained by

her were handed over to the Incharge Food Inspector of Adoni

Town and that she had no further role was disbelieved. The

reason for disbelieving the appellant was also set out in the

original order of termination. It was stated that all the dealers

were aware of the password needed to enter the system for

reseeding of bogus cards and that the petitioner while claiming

to have submitted the details to the Incharge Food Inspector,

had actually used the said information for reseeding the

Aadhaar cards for obtaining bogus ration cards.

HCJ&RRR,J W.A.No.779 of 2022

7. The appellate authority also accepted this finding of

the primary authority. This view was carried forward till the

matter reached a learned Single Judge of this Court.

8. The learned Single Judge after hearing both sides

and considering the material placed before him, had held that

her complicity in the entire affair can be noticed from the fact

that there was an excess allotment of 94 cards amounting to

diversion of 8.96 quintals of rice per month which was being

misused by her. On this basis, the learned Single Judge was

pleased to dismiss the writ petition.

9. Sri K.Rajanna, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant would submit that the appellant was not involved in

any misdoing. He would further submit that out of 11 fair price

shop dealers, who were investigated, only the appellant has been

victimized and all the remaining 10 dealers exonerated. He

would submit that exoneration of 10 dealers in a common

enquiry while holding the appellant alone to be guilty of

misdoing is not permissible and the same would amount to

violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Sri K. Rajanna

has also taken this Court through orders passed in the cases of

other dealers.

[

10. A perusal of the orders passed in the cases of other

dealers would show that there was a specific finding of fact that

HCJ&RRR,J W.A.No.779 of 2022

no material was available against the said dealers. However, in

the case of the appellant, a finding of complicity has been made

out against the appellant herein. In such circumstances, the

question of treating unequals equally would not and cannot

arise and there is no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of

India.

11. In the light of the findings given by the adjudicating

authorities and in the light of the observations of the learned

Single Judge, it would have to be held that there are no grounds

for interference in the present case.

12. Accordingly this Writ Appeal is dismissed. There

shall be no order as to costs.

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

stand closed.

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA ,CJ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

RJS

HCJ&RRR,J W.A.No.779 of 2022

23.

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

WRIT APPEAL No.779 of 2022

27.02.2023 RJS