Chitti Ramamurthy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 4519 AP

    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.920 of 2023

Between:

Chitti Ramamurthy, S/o.Late Gannaiah,
aged 64 years, Occ:Fair Price Shop Dealer,
R/o. Lankam Village, Srikakulam Rural Mandal,
Srikakulam District.
                                                         ...Appellant

                               Versus

The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep.by its Principal Secretary to Govt.,
(Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs(CS-I) Department
Secretariat, Velagapudi,
Amaravati,
Guntur District and 3 others.                       ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant : Mr.Srinivas Ambati

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

ORAL JUDGMENT Dt:22.09.2023

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

Heard Sri Srinivas Ambati, learned counsel for the appellant

and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.

HCJ&RRR,J W.A. No.920 of 2023

2. The appellant was appointed as a Fair Price Shop Dealer

for Shop No.29 of Lankam Village, Srikakulam Rural Mandal and

District in 1985. On 21.01.2015, an inspection of the fair price shop

was conducted by the Inspector of Vigilance, two Village Revenue

Officers and the Revenue Inspector (CS). In the course of this

inspection, it was found that there was a variation of stock of PDS

Rice, Sugar and other essential commodities. On account of this

finding, during the inspection, proceedings under Section 6-A of the

Essential Commodities Act, 1955 were initiated before the 2nd

respondent. Separate proceedings were also issued for cancellation

of the authorization given to the appellant, by way of show cause

notice dated 03.02.2015, issued by the 3rd respondent. The

appellant after receiving the show cause notice had given his

explanation on 20.02.2015. After receiving of this explanation, an

opportunity of personal hearing was given to the appellant and

thereafter, the authorization was cancelled vide proceedings dated

31.03.2015.

3. Aggrieved by the cancellation of authorization, the appellant

had moved the erstwhile High Court of Hyderabad for the State of

Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, by way of

W.P.No.12151 of 2015 wherein interim direction was granted

initially on 24.04.2015 and subsequently the writ petition was

HCJ&RRR,J W.A. No.920 of 2023

disposed of on 07.07.2015, by setting aside the order of the

cancellation and remanding the matter for fresh disposal before the

3rd respondent.

4. The 3rd respondent issued a fresh show cause notice on

13.08.2015 to which the appellant submitted his explanation on

24.08.2015. The 3rd respondent, after receipt of the explanation,

again cancelled the authorization of the appellant, by proceedings in

Rc.No.176/2014 CS dated 12.08.2016. Aggrieved by the said order,

the appellant moved an appeal before the 2nd respondent along with

an application for stay of operation of the proceedings dated

12.08.2016. As neither the stay application nor the appeal was

being taken up, the appellant moved this Court again, by way of

W.P.No.43614 of 2016, for a direction to the 2nd respondent to take

necessary steps. This Writ Petition was disposed of with a direction

to the 2nd respondent to dispose of the appeal, filed before him,

within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order and the

order of cancellation dated 12.08.2016 was suspended till the

disposal of the appeal.

5. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed on

27.02.2017. The appellant moved the 2nd respondent-District

Collector, by way of a Revision, against the order of dismissal of the

HCJ&RRR,J W.A. No.920 of 2023

appeal. This Revision was dismissed by proceedings bearing

D.Dis.SR(A)No.01/2017/S2 dated 15.07.2017. Aggrieved by the

said orders, the appellant had approached this Court in

W.P.No.39929 of 2017. Challenging the proceedings dated

15.07.2017 as well as the proceedings dated 12.08.2016. The said

writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court

on 10.03.2023. The present appeal is filed against the said order of

dismissal.

6. Sri Srinivas Ambati, the learned counsel for the appellant

would submit that none of the authorities had considered the

explanation given by him objectively and in any event the orders,

under challenge, passed by the authorities, did not set out any

adequate reasons for the rejection of the explanation of the

appellant and consequent dismissal of his

application/appeal/revision. Sri Srinivas Ambati would also raise a

further ground that the proceedings initiated against the appellant

were governed by the rules set out Control Order of 2008 while the

learned single Judge had considered the provisions of the Control

Order of 2018 which has replaced the 2008 order and as such, the

order of a learned Single Judge requires to the set aside.

7. While the learned Single Judge had noticed the provisions of

2018 Control Order, while disposing of the writ petition, the learned

HCJ&RRR,J W.A. No.920 of 2023

counsel for the appellant could not show any violation of procedure

contemplated under the 2008 Control Order. In the absence of any

prejudice being caused to the appellant, on account of the learned

Single Judge considering the 2018 Control Order, the order of the

learned Single Judge cannot be set aside on that short ground. In

fact, this Court had given an opportunity to the learned counsel for

the appellant to point out any violation of the provisions of the 2008

Control Order which would require a fresh look at the matter by this

Court. The learned counsel for the appellant has not shown this

Court any provision or procedure, under the provisions of the 2008

Control Order, which had been violated by the authorities while

passing the orders which are impugned before the learned Single

Judge and are being challenged before this Court.

8. In that view of the matter, the said objection of the appellant

does not have any merit and is rejected.

9. The appellant, in his explanation before the authorities, did

not dispute the fact that there is a variation of stock which was

revealed in the course of the inspection carried out on 21.01.2015.

The explanation given by the appellant, for the variation of stock, is

that on account of the Sankranthi festival, all the ration card

holders had come to the shop of the appellant at the same time and

had insisted on being given their ration. Due to the sudden rush, the

HCJ&RRR,J W.A. No.920 of 2023

appellant was unable to make the necessary entries in the registers

showing the disbursement of the ration to the card holders. The

appellant contends that this explanation of the appellant has never

been considered in a proper perspective and consequently, the

orders passed by the authorities require to be set aside.

10. The appellant would also rely upon the further discrete

enquires that are said to have carried out by the authorities which

revealed that the village had two political groups and that people in

the area had not made any complaint of non supply of essential

commodities for any point of time.

11. It must be noted that the Sankranthi festival occurs between

the 14th to 16th January while the inspection was carried on

21.01.2015. The appellant had more than five days for making the

necessary entries in the register and the plea of sudden influx of

customers, due to which the necessary entries could not be made,

may not be a sufficient explanation for the non entry of

disbursement in the registers.

12. The primary authority while passing the order of cancellation

of authorization of the appellant had also relied upon the order of

the 2nd respondent in the 6-A proceedings which had been initiated

earlier, this clearly shows that all the relevant circumstances had

HCJ&RRR,J W.A. No.920 of 2023

been taken into account by the authorities while passing the

impugned orders. This Judicial review of this court extends to

ascertaining whether the procedure adopted for arriving at a

decision requires any interference. This court will not, ordinarily,

look into the decision itself.

13. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court does not find any

reason to interfere with the Judgment of the learned Single Judge.

14. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is 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

HCJ&RRR,J W.A. No.920 of 2023

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

WRIT APPEAL No.920 of 2023

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

Dt:22.09.2023

RJS