Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 75 (AP)

R. Jaya Vijayaraj v. State of AP

2020-01-30

U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

body2020
JUDGMENT : U Durga Prasad Rao, J. The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus declaring the action of 2nd respondent in canceling the authorization of petitioner's Fair Price Shop No.1044019 of Krishnasamudram Village, Puttur Mandal, Chittoor District vide proceedings in D.Dis (C1)/542/2019 dated 27.11.2019 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice and for a consequential direction to set aside the said order. 2. The petitioner's case succinctly is thus: The petitioner was appointed as a dealer of Fair Price Shop No.1044019 of Krishnasamudram Village, Puttur Mandal, Chittoor District on 16.08.1997 and her authentication is valid upto 31.03.2020. While so, on 08.08.2019 the staff of District Civil Supplies Office and 3rd respondent inspected the petitioner's Fair Price shop and found certain irregularities, such as variations in respect of PDS Rice to an extent of 77 KGs, out of 65.86 quintals; variation in sugar is 0.01/2 KG, out of 1.901/2 quintals; variation in Atta is 1.01 KGs, out of 2.32 quintals and variation in RG Gal & MDA is 0.13 KGs, out of 0.30 and 0.30 quintals and though all the aforesaid items come under the permissible limits of variation, submitted report to the 2nd respondent on 20.08.2019. Basing on the said report, the 2nd respondent suspended the authorization of the petitioner and initiated proceedings under Section 6-A of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short "EC Act") and appointed Vennela self-help group on temporary basis to supply the commodities. Thereafter, two charges were framed against the petitioner and the petitioner submitted her explanation. However, without considering her explanation in a proper perspective, the 2nd respondent vide his proceedings in D.Dis.(CI)/542/2019 dated 27.11.2019. The said cancellation is violative of A.P. State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2018 (for short "Control Order, 2018"). Hence, the writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, representing the respondents. 4. As can be seen, as against the impugned order, appeal is provided under Rule 24 of Control Order, 2018. In view of availability of efficacious and alternative remedy, I am of the view that without expressing any opinion on merits of the petitioner's case, she can be given liberty to file appeal. 4. As can be seen, as against the impugned order, appeal is provided under Rule 24 of Control Order, 2018. In view of availability of efficacious and alternative remedy, I am of the view that without expressing any opinion on merits of the petitioner's case, she can be given liberty to file appeal. At the same time, prima facie finding that alleged variation in one of the essential commodities i.e. Rice is less than 1.5% (65.86 x 1.5% = 0.9879) and variation in respect of other items is marginal one, the petitioner can be permitted to operate as fair price shop dealer pending disposal of the appeal. 5. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to file appeal against the impugned order of the 2nd respondent in D.Dis. (CI)/542/2019 dated 27.11.2019 within three weeks from the date of this order, in which case, the appellate authority shall consider the grounds of appeal and after affording a personal hearing to the petitioner, shall dispose of the appeal in accordance with governing law and Rules expeditiously. Till such exercise is completed, the petitioner shall be permitted to operate fair price shop No.1044019. No order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.