Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sri Nagalamma Mahila Sangam vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 18 September, 2024
1
BSB, J
W.P.No.19564 of 2024
APHC010388262024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3311]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI
WRIT PETITION NO: 19564/2024
Between:
Sri Nagalamma Mahila Sangam ...PETITIONER
AND
The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. M M M Srinivasa Rao
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP for Civil Supplies
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Writ Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is filed for the
following relief:
...to issue a writ or direction preferably writ of
mandamus declaring the action of the respondents No.3 and 4
in insisting the petitioner to tender her resignation and not
allowing to run the shop No.1044016, KBR Puram Village,
Puttur Mandal, Tirupati District., without there being any order
of suspension or cancellation by the competent authority by
following due procedure under the Andhra Pradesh State
Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 is
illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice
and consequently direct the respondents to allow the
BSB, J
petitioner to run the shop as usual till her appointment is
valid...
2. The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows:
Earlier Smt.P.Kavitha W/o. Eswaraiah, is the permanent dealer, she
submitted her resignation for the subject shop, and thereafter, the petitioner
was appointed on behalf of Sri Nagalamma Mahila Sangam Self Help Group
vide proceedings dated 26.10.2022 issued by the 3rd respondent. The
petitioner was appointed on temporary basis, but the proceedings itself
indicate that the petitioner is permitted to run the shop till the issue of
notification for filling up the vacancy on permanent basis. The petitioner has
been running the said shop for the last 2 years without any complaints from
anybody whatsoever. The petitioner has only source of income for his group
and profit would be shared between the members and running the same as
per instructions issued by the authorities from time to time. The proceedings
shows that the appointment is on temporary basis, but the arrangement would
continue in force until further orders. While the matter stood thus, for the last
10 days, at the instance of 4th respondent, CSDT & VRO came to the shop of
the petitioner and insisted him to tender resignation. Without any complaint or
allegation, the authorities have been interfering with the distribution work of
the petitioner and warning the MDU operator not to lift the stock without
consent from the authorities. Every day, the above said staff are coming to
the shop of the petitioner and alleging that he is not residing in the village,
maintaining the stocks properly, opening the shop regularly and maintaining
the timings. All the allegations are false and created due to change in political
scenario. The authorities cannot insist the petitioner for resignation and
interfere with the distribution work of the petitioner. Further, the Full Bench
judgment of this Hon'ble Court in M. Vanaja Vs B. Bala Seshanna and
others1 it is held that a temporary dealer is on par with permanent dealer, as
the temporary dealer to acquires a substantive interest to run the fair price
shop. Further, this Court observed in K. Bharathi Vs The Collector (Civil
2007 (4) ALD 388
BSB, J
Supplies) and others2 that whether a dealer is permanent or temporary will
not make any difference in deciding these questions. Even if the petitioner is
a temporary dealer, he is entitled to continue till he is removed in accordance
with law. As such, the authorities have to follow the procedure as
contemplated under the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution
System (Control) Order, 2018. The Full Bench of this Court in Oleti
Tirupathamma Vs District Supply Officer3 held that if the licensing authority
themselves upon, application of mind, come to the conclusion that the
irregularities committed by the fair price shop dealer would warrant
suspension of his licence, it may do so but, the authority, without taking
recourse to the said action, cannot refuse to supply the essential commodities.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that without there being
any order of suspension or cancellation of the dealership, the supply of the
commodities to the petitioner is abruptly stopped.
4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, on written
instructions of Tahsildar, Puttur Mandal, Tirupati District, submitted that there
is no truth in the allegations and that the petitioner is continuing as a dealer
and the commodities have been regularly supplied.
5. In view of the same, the writ petition is disposed of directing the
respondent authorities to continue the supply of the commodities to the
petitioner so long as the legal formalities are compiled and the authorization is
in force. There shall be no orders as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this
Writ Petition shall stand closed.
___________________ ___
JUSTICE B.S. BHANUMATHI
Dated 18.09.2024
KMS
2011 (2) ALD 520
2002 (1) ALD 577
BSB, J
THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI
WRIT PETITION NO: 19564 of 2024
Date: 18.09.2024
KMS
