Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 68 (AP)

Chinthala Subbarayudu v. State of AP

2020-01-28

U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

body2020
JUDGMENT : U Durga Prasad Rao, J. The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus questioning the action of respondent No.3 in issuing the proceedings in reference No.1(4)/1524/2019, dated 02.01.2020 whereby the suspending authorization of the petitioner as dealer of the Fair Price shop No.1104015 of Chinnasettipalli village of Rajupalem Mandal, YSR Kadapa District without issuing any notice, as illegal and violative of principles of natural justice and against the provisions of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 (for short, 'Control Order, 2018') and for a consequential direction. 2. The petitioner's case succinctly is thus. The petitioner's father was appointed as dealer in the year 2000-2001 which was renewed from time to time till 2018 and after the expiry of his father on 16.10.2018, the petitioner applied for allotment of dealership of the Fair Price Shop on compassionate grounds and the same is pending for consideration before the authorities. In the meanwhile, the respondent No.3 provisionally appointed the petitioner as Fair Price shop dealer vide his proceedings Ref. 1(4)/06/2019, dated 19.02.2019 and ever since the petitioner has been distributing the essential commodities to the cardholders without any blemish. However, all of a sudden, the respondent No.3 issued proceedings vide Ref.No.1(4)/1524/2019, dated 02.01.2020 and suspended the authorization of the petitioner without any fault on the part of the petitioner and without issuing show cause notice and calling for his explanation. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner Sri P. Narahari Babu and learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 4. The main plank of argument of learned counsel for petitioner is that in impugned order, the respondent No.3 noted as if the Assistant Supply Officer, Jammalamadugu during the course of his inspection of the petitioner's shop found some irregularities and therefore he found prima-facie case of contravention of the Control Order, 2018 by the petitioner and on such observation, the respondent No.3 suspended the authorization of the petitioner without issuing show cause notice to the petitioner and affording an opportunity to him to submit his explanation. Therefore, he would strenuously argue, principles of natural justice became casualty in this case. 4. In oppugnation, learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, would argue that the petitioner committed several irregularities which were revealed in the report of the Assistant Supply Officer, Jammalamadugu. Therefore, he would strenuously argue, principles of natural justice became casualty in this case. 4. In oppugnation, learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, would argue that the petitioner committed several irregularities which were revealed in the report of the Assistant Supply Officer, Jammalamadugu. The irregularities are (1) the petitioner has allowed his Benami/M. Lakshmi Reddy to run the Fair Price shop; (2) Benami person was selling the RG Dall at Rs.50/- per kg instead of Rs.40/- per kg to the cardholders and selling sugar kg at Rs.10/- to the AAY cardholders instead of 1 kg at Rs.13.50. In view of those irregularities, learned Government Pleader would argue, the respondent No.3 has taken a right decision to suspend the authorization of the petitioner and therefore, there were no irregularities in the said order. He thus, prayed to dismiss the petition. 5. I gave my anxious consideration to the above respective arguments. The impugned order dated 02.01.2020 shows that on the report of the Assistant Supply Officer, Jammalamadugu and along with enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Proddatur and Muddanur said to have inspected the Fair Price shop of the petitioner and found certain irregularities in course of the distribution of essential commodities to the cardholders i.e., the petitioner allowed Benami person to run the Fair Price shop, selling the RG Dall at Rs.50/- per kg instead of Rs.40/- per kg to the cardholders and selling sugar kg at Rs.10/- to the AAY cardholders instead of 1 kg at Rs.13.50, the respondent No.3 found prima-facie in contravention of Control Order, 2018 caused by the petitioner placed his authorization under suspension pending disciplinary proceedings. 6. As can be seen from the report submitted by the Assistant Supply Officer, a copy of which is made available by Government Pleader, three irregularities are said to be committed by the petitioner. Firstly he allegedly allowed one M. Lakshmi Reddy; operate the Fair Price Shop as his Benami person, secondly, the cardholders informed to the inspecting officers with the Benami person was selling RG Dall at Rs.50/- per kg instead of Rs.40/- per kg to the cardholders; and thirdly that the Benami person was distributing the sugar at Rs.10/- per kg to the AAY cardholders instead of Rs.13.50 per kg. These irregularities, it appears weighed with the respondent No.3 to suspend the authorization of the petitioner. These irregularities, it appears weighed with the respondent No.3 to suspend the authorization of the petitioner. It is pertinent to note that no variation in any of the commodities in the stock was found during the course of inspection. Further, the petitioner gave a spontaneous explanation before the Inspecting Officer that M. Lakshmi Reddy was engaged by him to assist him in distribution of commodities on payment of Rs.2000/- per month. Therefore, whether the said M. Lakshmi Reddy was a benami person or assistant of the petitioner is to be decided only after due enquiry. Similarly, whether the alleged benami was selling the certain commodities at higher prices or not is also to be decided after due enquiry. However, having regard to the fact that in this case no variation in different essential commodities was found in inspection and the petitioner has submitted a spot explanation for the irregularity No.1, in my considered view, the suspension of the dealership can be set aside while directing the respondent No.3 to complete the disciplinary enquiry expeditiously. 7. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings ref. No.1(4)/1524/2019 dated 02.01.2020 suspending the authorization of the petitioner's Fair Price shop No.1104015, Chinnasettipalli Village of Rajupalem Mandal, YSR Kadapa District is set aside and the respondent No.3 is directed to complete the disciplinary proceedings after a regular enquiry as expeditiously as possible but not later than three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such exercise is completed, the petitioner shall be permitted to operate the Fair Price shop No.1104015. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.