Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1411 (AP)

K. Bhaskar Naik v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2014-11-21

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

body2014
ORDER 1. This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside proceedings in RC. No. 2547/2014C dated 28.10.2014 of respondent No. 2, whereby he has suspended the petitioner's fair price shop authorization, while issuing show-cause notice. The following are the charges on which respondent No. 2 has suspended the petitioner's authorization. "Charge No. 1 : The F.P. Shop dealer is (has) received K. Oil on 17-9-2014 for the month of September 2014. But even after lapse of one month, he has not distributed K. Oil to the cardholders and caused much hindrance to the cardholders. Charge No. 2 : The F.P. Shop dealer is (has) dumped the entire K. Oil in a community building in the village instead of his F.P. Shop premises with a mala fide intention to shift the K. Oil and ECS to the black market. Charge No. 3 : The F.P Shop dealer is (has) failed to attend at the time of local enquiry by the CSDT to depose the enquiry statements. Charge No. 4 : During enquiry, the cardholders have given statements that the F.P Shop dealer is issuing Ecs 3 or 4 days only in a month with less weighments. Charge No. 5 : The F.P Shop dealer failed to produce all the F.P. shop accounts except the sales Register and Release order. Charge No. 6 : During the physical verification of stocks with reference to sales, following variations are noticed, the excess stock of 2.28 Qts. of Rice and shortage of 0.21 Kgs. of Sugar. 2. The sum and substance of charge Nos. 1 and 2 is that though the petitioner has received kerosene oil on 17.09.2014 for the month of September 2014, he has not distributed the same and that he has dumped the kerosene oil in a community building in the village, with a mala fide intention to shift the same to black-market. In his explanation, the petitioner has categorically averred that since 17.09.2014, on which date the kerosene was supplied to him, he was awaiting release orders by the Revenue Inspector and that the latter deliberately did not issue the release order in order to put him in problems. In his explanation, the petitioner has categorically averred that since 17.09.2014, on which date the kerosene was supplied to him, he was awaiting release orders by the Revenue Inspector and that the latter deliberately did not issue the release order in order to put him in problems. For charge No. 2, the petitioner has clearly explained that he has been distributing the essential commodities from the community building in the village for a long time, to facilitate the cardholders and that, therefore, the question of storing the kerosene oil in the community building with a view to divert the same into black-market does not arise. The petitioner has also denied charge Nos. 3, 4 and 5, which are too trivial in nature to suspend his authorization. As regards the alleged variations mentioned in charge No. 6, the petitioner has stoutly denied any such variations and stated that the said allegation is entirely false. He has further stated that when the entries in the sales register are compared along with the ground stock, no variation could be found and that the Inspecting Officer has deliberately mentioned that variations exist, while, in fact, no such variations are found. 3. In K. Nirmala vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapur, 2013 (1) ALT 339 , this Court held as under: "This Court has time and again held that an order of suspension of fair price shop authorization being punitive in nature cannot be resorted to on trivial and flimsy grounds and that unless the appointing authority or the disciplinary authority has the reason to believe that the fair price shop dealer has been indulging in serious irregularities and that his further continuance pending enquiry as a dealer will cause serious prejudice to the public interest, suspension cannot be resorted to. It is regrettable that this principle is being ignored by the competent authorities in many a case. The case on hand is a perfect illustration of how respondent No. 2 has failed to make a rational approach by suspending the petitioner's authorization on the ground of small variations. Respondent No. 1 has also completely failed to consider this aspect and rejected the petitioner's application for stay without even assigning any reasons therefor." 4. The case on hand is a perfect illustration of how respondent No. 2 has failed to make a rational approach by suspending the petitioner's authorization on the ground of small variations. Respondent No. 1 has also completely failed to consider this aspect and rejected the petitioner's application for stay without even assigning any reasons therefor." 4. In Thyrumala Setty Phanindra vs. District Collector (CS), Guntur District, 2013 (5) ALT 237 , this Court, while reiterating the ratio in K. Nirmala (Supra), further held as under: "Any order of suspension, even if the same is passed pending enquiry, results in serious adverse consequences to the fair price shop dealer. While exercising this power, the appointing authority needs to use a proper sense of proportion. The power of suspension cannot be exercised as a matter of course. The main purpose of keeping dealership under suspension pending enquiry is to prevent the dealer from tampering with the record. Therefore, only when serious allegations of commissions and omissions in distribution of the essential commodities in the fair price shop are made and a prima facie case is established against the dealer, the power of suspension of authorisation has to be exercised. There may be certain allegations which may not warrant immediate suspension. The case on hand falls in this category where no suspension is warranted, as it is a matter of verification with reference to evidence whether the petitioner has permitted a benami to run the fair price shop or not. Considering the fact that the petitioner's fair price shop is run without any variations between the stock register and the ground stock and without there being any complaints, from any card holders, of improper distribution of commodities and in the absence of any allegation that the petitioner or the person who is allegedly running the fair price shop is indulging in acts, such as diversion of the essential commodities into black market, the hasty action of respondent No. 2 in suspending the petitioner's authorization cannot be sustained." 5. In my opinion, the nature of the allegations on which respondent No. 2 has suspended the petitioner's fair price shop authorization does not warrant such suspension. Each one of the allegations made against the petitioner needs a detailed verification in the enquiry to be held by respondent No. 2. Without holding such enquiry, respondent No. 2 was wholly unjustified in suspending the petitioner's authorization. 6. Each one of the allegations made against the petitioner needs a detailed verification in the enquiry to be held by respondent No. 2. Without holding such enquiry, respondent No. 2 was wholly unjustified in suspending the petitioner's authorization. 6. For the aforementioned reasons, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. As a sequel to the allowing of the writ petition, W.P.M.P. No. 44461 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous. Petition allowed.