Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 450 (AP)

Valireddy Sathyavathi v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2021-07-23

M.GANGA RAO

body2021
JUDGMENT This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the following relief/s:- “… to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in temporarily suspending the Authorization of petitioner to Fair Price Shop No.4 of Madhupada Village, Gajapathinagaram Mandal, Vizianagaram District through proceedings in D.C.No.61/2020/G1, dated 16.06.2020 without enquiry and without assigning reasons as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and opposed to principles of natural justice and against the provisions of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 and consequently set aside the proceedings of 2nd respondent in D.C.No.61/2020/G1, dated 16.06.2020 and pass such other order or orders …” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. 3. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as a permanent fair price shop dealer of shop No.4 of Madhupala Village vide proceedings in Rc No.261/08/B, dated 18.08.2008 by the 5th respondent. She used to distribute the essential commodities to the card holders by using the electronic devices i.e., “e-pos” and “e-weighing scale” to nearly 693 card holders without any complaint. The Mandal Civil Supplies Officer (MCSO), Gajapathinagaram stated that, the dealer has supplied Bengal gram whole instead of red gram dal during the month of May, 2020 and also collected Rs.10/- from each cardholder and that the dealer is supplying Bengal gram whole with the aid of plastic tin instead of measuring through weighing scale and that the rice is being measured with gunny bag due to which the card holders are getting less quantities. The dealer has also admitted the irregularities in the distribution of stocks. The District Collector (Civil Supplies) passed the impugned suspension order basing on the report of the 6th respondent without calling for any explanation from the petitioner, without giving any opportunity of hearing and without recording any reasons in writing as required under clause 8(4) of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018. Aggrieved by the said order the present Writ Petition came to be filed. 4. Aggrieved by the said order the present Writ Petition came to be filed. 4. The 2nd respondent-District Collector (Civil Supplies), Vizianagaram filed counter affidavit mainly stating that the petitioner is not supplying the essential commodities to the satisfaction of the card holders and that she is not using e-weighing scale while supplying the essential commodities to the card holders and that the card holders made a complaint against the petitioner on 15.05.2020 about improper distribution of stocks under PDS by the petitioner. The 6th respondent conducted enquiry on receipt of such complaint. During the enquiry the cardholders/complainants stated that the petitioner has supplied Bengalgram whole (Chana Dal) to the card holders instead of Redgram dal during the month of May, 2020 in deviation of instructions issued by the officials and also collected Rs.10/- from each cardholder for supply of Bengalgram whole (Chana Dal) with the aid of plastic tin instead of measuring through weighing scale and measuring rice with gunny bag due to which they are getting less quantities. On enquiry by the 6th respondent the petitioner admitted the allegations made in the complaint and also stated that she has supplied Bengalgram whole (chana dal) to the card holders instead of Redgram dal as per their will and admitted that she has also committed irregularities in the distribution of stocks. Therefore, the petitioner has committed irregularities in distribution of essential commodities to the card holders during the Covid-19 lock down period in violation of provisions under Clause 12(f)(h)(i)(j) & (m) and Clause 22(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order is passed by the District Collector (Civil Supplies), Vijayanagaram based on the report dated 26.05.2020 submitted by the 6th respondent-Mandal Civil Supplies Officer. The petitioner was not given any opportunity to submit her explanation to the report of the 6th respondent stating that the petitioner committed irregularities violating the provisions of Clause 12(f)(h)(i)(j) and (m) of the Control Order muchless without any reasons and kept the petitioner’s authorization under suspension by exercising the power under Clause 8(4) of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 which is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. 6. 6. Per contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies would contend that the 6th respondent conducted enquiry on 23.05.2020 and submitted the report on 26.05.2020 recording the statements of the complaint card holders and the petitioner and stated that the petitioner committed irregularities in distribution of the essential commodities to the card holders and thereby violated the provisions of the A.P.S.T.P.D.S (Control) Order, 2018 for which the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order suspending the petitioner’s authorization pending enquiry exercising the power under Clause 8(4) of the A.P.S.T.P.D.S (Control) Order, 2018. He states that there is no irregularity or illegality in passing the impugned order which calls for interference by this Court. Against the suspension order an Appeal lies to the District Collector (Civil Supplies). Hence, the Writ Petition is misconceived and liable to be dismissed. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the record, this Court found that the 2nd respondent- District Collector(Civil Supplies), Vijayanagaram passed the impugned order suspending the petitioner’s authorization exercising the power under Clause 8(4) of the A.P.S.T.P.D.S (Control) Order, 2018, which states that the appointing authority may, at any time in the public interest or on suo-motu or on receipt of complaint, after making such enquiry as may be deemed necessary and for reasons to be recorded in writing, suspend or cancel the authorization issued or deemed to be issued to him/her under this clause. A perusal of the impugned order discloses that the copy of the enquiry report is not served on the petitioner and not called for any explanation from her. The impugned order doesn’t disclose reasons muchless valid reasons and only it refers to the report submitted by the 6th respondent-Mandal Civil Supplies Officer and the provisions of the A.P.S.T.P.D.S (Control) Order, 2018 and nothing more than that. This Court could deduce that the impugned order is bereft of reasons in keeping the petitioner’s authorization under suspension which is contrary to the provisions of A.P.S.T.P.D.S (Control) Order, 2018. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention states that the impugned order suspending the authorization of the petitioner is passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to explain the irregularities alleged to have been committed by the petitioner in the report submitted by the 6th respondent. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention states that the impugned order suspending the authorization of the petitioner is passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to explain the irregularities alleged to have been committed by the petitioner in the report submitted by the 6th respondent. In W.P.No.13317 of 2019 dated 17.12.2019 wherein, a reference is made to the Full Bench decision of High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Tappers Co-operative Society, Maddur V. Superintendent of Excise, Mahaboobnagar, 1984 (2) APLJ (HC) 1 held that suspending the authorization of the petitioner without recording any reasons during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings is illegal and arbitrary exercise of power. Therefore, the Court held that the order is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. Accordingly, the impugned order was set aside. 9. Therefore, while accepting the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.13317 of 2019 dated 17.12.2021 and for the reasons alike this Court also comes to the conclusion that the impugned order is passed without any enquiry and giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner contrary to the provisions of Clause 8(4) of the A.P.S.T.P.D.S (Control) Order, 2018 and found that no valid reasons are recorded for keeping the petitioner’s authorization under suspension. It is found that the impugned order is passed in arbitrary exercise of power conferred on the 2nd respondent. So, the impugned order is liable to the set aside. 10. Therefore, in view of the interim order granted by this Court on 30.12.2020 and as the learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner is distributing the essential commodities to the card holders. In view of the above discussion, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 16.06.2020. However, it is left open to the 2nd respondent to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner as per the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 and the law laid down by this Court in B.Manjula v. District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool and others, 2015(4) ALT 572 . Pidikiti Sailaja v. State of A.P., 2015(2) ALT 667 and C.Durga Srinivas Rao and others vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others, 2015 (6) ALD 359 . There shall be no order as to costs. Pidikiti Sailaja v. State of A.P., 2015(2) ALT 667 and C.Durga Srinivas Rao and others vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others, 2015 (6) ALD 359 . There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.