Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1128 (AP)

Rella Kusuma Kumari v. State Of A. P.

2022-10-28

BATTU DEVANAND

body2022
ORDER : 1. This writ petition has been filed against the Order in SR.No.37 of 2019, S5, dated 25.10.2019 issued by the Joint Collector, Srikakulam i.e., the 2nd respondent herein, cancelling the authorization of the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop bearing No.0120046 of Segidipeta, H/o Srikurmam Village, Gara Mandal, Srikakulam District. 2. This Court by Order 23.03.2021 allowed the present Writ Petition. As per the direction in W.A.No.106 of 2020, the said Order is recalled directing the petitioner to implead 3rd party as respondent in the Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Petitioner filed implead Petition in I.A.No.01 of 2021 and it is allowed impleading as Respondent No.4. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. There is no representation on behalf of respondent No.4, though this case is adjourned several times for their appearance. Perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a permanent Fair Price Shop dealer of Segidipeta, H/o Srikurmam Village, Gara Mandal. He has been distributing the essential commodities to the card holders for more than 11 years without any complaint. On 06.08.2019, the Inspector of Police, Regional Vigilance and Enforcement along with Mandal Revenue Inspector-II of Gara Mandal inspected the shop of the petitioner bearing No.0120046 of Segidipeta, H/o Srikurmam Village, Gara Mandal, Srikakulam District and seized the stocks available in the shop under a cover of mediatorsnama alleging that there is a shortage of 21.8 Kgs of rice and registered a case under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act. The respondent No.3 has submitted a report to the respondent No.2. Basing on the same, the respondent No.2 issued a show cause notice dated 26.08.2019 framing 12 charges and directed the petitioner to submit her explanation. The petitioner has submitted her explanation on 12.09.2019 denying all the charges. In the explanation, it is clearly stated that the variation of rice is well within the permissible limits. The Inspecting Authority seized the stocks on the ground that the F.P. Shop is being run in unauthorized place. It is also stated in the mediator’s report that the particulars of the commodities are not entered on the board. But surprisingly the respondent No.2 framed 12 charges leveling all violations enumerated under Clause 10 and 12 of the Control Order, 2018. It is also stated in the mediator’s report that the particulars of the commodities are not entered on the board. But surprisingly the respondent No.2 framed 12 charges leveling all violations enumerated under Clause 10 and 12 of the Control Order, 2018. There are no allegations in the mediatorsnama such as non-opening of FP shop during the distribution days, non-issue of receipts, using of unauthorized measuring units, giving money without distributing PDS commodities and retaining the commodities, denial of supply of scheduled commodities to the card holders, selling the commodities over and above the rates fixed by the Government, taking part in any political activity etc.. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.2 for the reasons best known to him framed 12 charges which are not found in the mediatorsnama. The petitioner submitted explanation as charge wise denying all the charges as she is not contravened any of the provisions of the Control Order. Learned counsel further submitted that as per the release Order, the PDS rice supplied to the shop of the petitioner for the month of August, 2019 is 78.37 Qtls (7,837 Kgs), whereas the sale took place up to the date of inspection is 54.94 Qtls ( 5,494 Kgs). The permissible variation is 1.5% which comes to 82.41 Kgs on months sales, whereas the variation found is 21.8 Kgs. As such, the learned counsel contends that the alleged shortage of rice is within the permissible limits. 6. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent No.2 without considering the explanation and without conducting any enquiry, cancelled the authorization of the petitioner stating that the explanation was not at all satisfactory. The respondent No.2, without application of mind, passed the impugned Order mechanically with predetermined mind, and as such, it is liable to be set aside. 7. On behalf of the respondents, a Counter Affidavit has been filed. 8. Learned counsel for the Civil Supplies contends that the impugned Order is passed as per the procedure prescribed under the Control Order, 2018, after considering the allegations received against the petitioner and also the explanation submitted by the petitioner. 9. 7. On behalf of the respondents, a Counter Affidavit has been filed. 8. Learned counsel for the Civil Supplies contends that the impugned Order is passed as per the procedure prescribed under the Control Order, 2018, after considering the allegations received against the petitioner and also the explanation submitted by the petitioner. 9. Having considered the submissions of the respective counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the Fair Price Shop of the petitioner was inspected on 06.08.2019 and found shortage of 21.8 Kgs of rice and the Inspecting Authorities seized the entire stock available in the shop under the cover of mediatorsnama and later initiated Proceedings under Section 6-A of the E.C.Act. The impugned Order is passed by the respondent No.2 by exercising power under Clause 8 (4) of the Control Order, 2018, and cancelled the authorization of the petitioner. As the variation i.e., shortage in ground balance of rice is 21.8 Kgs, which is within the permissible limit as per Clause 29 (a) of the Control Order, 2018, and that too it is not a repetitive lapse or irregularity committed by the petitioner, taking such a serious action to cancel the authorization of the petitioner during the pendency of enquiry under Section 6-A of the E.C. Act, is illegal and arbitrary. Besides this, an opportunity has to be provided to the petitioner before passing the cancellation Order, which is a punitive in nature. But, in the present case, no such opportunity was given to the petitioner, which is in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is settled law that the respondent No.2 ought to have assigned sufficient reasons for such cancellation, but in the present case, no reasons are recorded for cancellation of the authorization of the petitioner. 10. In view of all these infirmities in the impugned order, in our considered view, the order impugned in this Writ Petition is unsustainable under law and it is liable to be set aside. 11. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed and the Order in SR.No.37/2019, S5, dated 25.10.2019 of the respondent No.2 is set aside. The respondents are directed to continue the petitioner as Fair Price Shop dealer for the shop bearing No.0120046 of Segidipeta, H/o Srikurmam Village, Gara Mandal, Srikakulam District, as usual. 12. There shall be no order as to costs. 11. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed and the Order in SR.No.37/2019, S5, dated 25.10.2019 of the respondent No.2 is set aside. The respondents are directed to continue the petitioner as Fair Price Shop dealer for the shop bearing No.0120046 of Segidipeta, H/o Srikurmam Village, Gara Mandal, Srikakulam District, as usual. 12. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.