Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1141 (AP)

V. Madhu v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2022-10-28

BATTU DEVANAND

body2022
ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and perused the material available on record. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner is the Fair Price Shop dealer of the shop bearing No. 1151020 of Vankamarri Village, Sri Avadutha Kasinayana Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. He is running the Fair Price Shop and distributing the essential commodities to the satisfaction of the card holders without any complaint. On 11.07.2019, the respondent No. 3 issued an Order in Ref. No. 1(4)/490/2019, dated 11.07.2019, suspending the authorization of the petitioner on the ground that he has committed irregularities in distribution of essential commodities to the card holders. The said Order was received by the petitioner on 19.07.2019. Aggrieved by the suspension Order dated 11.07.2019, the petitioner approached the High Court by filing W.P. No. 12885 of 2019. By Order dated 18.07.2019, the said Writ Petition was disposed of directing the petitioner to submit his explanation against the impugned Order dated 11.07.2019 by treating the same as show cause notice within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. In such event, the respondent No. 2 shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of explanation by the petitioner. Till such exercise is undertaken, the respondent authorities shall permit the petitioner to run his Fair Price Shop and allot essential commodities on payment of the stipulated amount as per the rules. Pursuant to the said Order, the authorization of the petitioner was restored by the respondent No. 3 on 02.10.2019. Thereafter, the respondent No. 3 passed the Order in Ref. No. 1(4)/490/2019, dated 13.01.2020, cancelling the authorization of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2, without following due procedure, passed the impugned Order by confirming the Order of the Respondent No. 3. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that all the allegations leveled against the petitioner are false and incorrect and he did not violate any of the rules or provisions. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that all the allegations leveled against the petitioner are false and incorrect and he did not violate any of the rules or provisions. Learned counsel further contends that the report of the Tahsildar i.e. the respondent No. 5 herein, which formed the basis of the charges was not supplied to the petitioner, which is in violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to the Control Order, 2018. He further contends that the charges/allegations are purported to be invented at the instance of the opponent group who are politically inimical towards the petitioner with a view to get the F.P. shop in their favour. The respondent No. 2 passed the impugned Order without taking into consideration the explanation submitted by the petitioner. Learned counsel contends that proper enquiry is required under law before passing the cancellation order, which is not followed by the respondent No. 3 and passed the impugned Order of cancellation in mechanical way and the respondent No. 2 also without considering the grounds raised in the appeal in a casual manner confirmed the Order of the Respondent No. 3. 4. A counter Affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. In the Counter Affidavit filed by the respondent No. 3, it is averred that Sri D.C. Govinda Reddy, MLC, Badvel, has filed a complaint against the petitioner stating that he is committed certain irregularities in distribution of essential commodities and causing inconvenience to the card holders. On receipt of the said complaint, the Mandal Revenue Inspector along with Village Revenue Officer, Venkamarri Village, have inspected the fair price shop of the petitioner on 19.06.2019 and found certain irregularities like distribution of less quantity of essential commodities to the card holders, collecting of higher rates than the prescribed prices, and also failed to display the information on the Notice Board at the F.P. shop. Basing on the said report, the respondent No. 5 submitted a detailed report to the respondent No. 3, recommending for disciplinary action against the petitioner. Basing on the report of the respondent No. 5, the authorization of the petitioner was suspended on 11.07.2019. Pursuant to the Order dated 11.09.2019 in W.P. No. 12885 of 2019, the petitioner was permitted to run the fair price shop by Order dated 02.10.2019. 5. Basing on the report of the respondent No. 5, the authorization of the petitioner was suspended on 11.07.2019. Pursuant to the Order dated 11.09.2019 in W.P. No. 12885 of 2019, the petitioner was permitted to run the fair price shop by Order dated 02.10.2019. 5. The learned counsel submits that after giving an opportunity to the petitioner, the authorization of the petitioner was cancelled by Proceedings dated 13.01.2020. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Respondent No. 2 on 10.02.2020 and after hearing the petitioner, the respondent No. 2 has passed Orders on 03.03.2022 confirming the order of the respondent No. 3. The learned Government Pleader contends that the Order dated 03.03.2022 passed by the Respondent No. 2 are in accordance with law in 10 (d), 12 (1), 12 (m) and 12 (n) of the A.P.S.T.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2018 and sought to dismiss the Writ Petition. 6. Having heard the submissions of the respective counsel and on perusal of the material available on record, it is an admitted fact that basing on the complaint made by the local MLC, the shop of the petitioner was inspected on 19.06.2019 and seized the stocks available in the shop and submitted a report to the respondent No. 3 under a cover of Mediator’s Report. Thereafter, the respondent No. 3 suspended the authorization of the petitioner and the same was set aside by this Court by Order dated 11.09.2029 in W.P. No. 12885 of 2019 by restoring the authorization of the petitioner and again it was cancelled by Order dated 13.01.2020. In an appeal filed against the said Order of cancellation of authorization, the respondent No. 2 has confirmed the Order of the Respondent No. 3. On careful examination of the Order passed by the Respondent No. 3, it appears the procedure provided under law to conduct disciplinary proceedings against the allegations made against the Fair Price Shop dealer is not followed. The explanation submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice also not properly considered. There is no any reasons recorded with regard to the consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner for the show cause notice. 7. The explanation submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice also not properly considered. There is no any reasons recorded with regard to the consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner for the show cause notice. 7. In B. Manjula vs. District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool and Others, 2015 (4) ALT 572 the learned Single Judge of this Court after considering several orders passed by this Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court has considered the procedure to be followed by the authorities to conduct enquiry and to pass orders in disciplinary proceedings. In the said judgment at paragraph No. 9 to 11 held as under: “9. This Court is conscious of the fact that the law discussed above was laid down by the Courts in the context of disciplinary proceedings against Government servants and it may not be possible to adhere to the same rigors of procedure in an enquiry against a fair price shop dealer. However, this Court is of the considered opinion that since an order of cancellation of fair price shop visits the dealer with adverse consequences, the appointing authority must adhere to the fundamental ingredients of an enquiry. The enquiry need not be too elaborate as in the case of a disciplinary proceeding against a Government servant, but it shall follow the basic requirement of an enquiry which in my view must be as described infra. 10. An “enquiry” pre-supposes an opportunity of personal hearing to the dealer to explain his/her case based on the records such as sales and stock registers. If need be, such enquiry must also include recording the sworn statement of the dealer and witnesses, if any, from his/her side. In cases where either card holders or other persons sent any complaint, they must also be examined in the presence of the dealer or his/her lawyer and the dealer shall be given an opportunity of cross-examining such persons. The licencing/disciplinary authority shall also supply to the dealer all the reports on which he is likely to place reliance to the detriment of the dealer. Unless the dealer has no explanation at all to offer, the licensing/disciplinary authority is bound to hold a detailed enquiry. 11. The experience of this Court reveals that the appointing authorities of fair price shop dealers are dispensing with the requirement of making personal enquiry by summoning the dealers. Unless the dealer has no explanation at all to offer, the licensing/disciplinary authority is bound to hold a detailed enquiry. 11. The experience of this Court reveals that the appointing authorities of fair price shop dealers are dispensing with the requirement of making personal enquiry by summoning the dealers. They are merely relying upon the reports sent by their subordinates i.e. Deputy Tahsildars and Tahsildars, behind the back of the dealers and resting their decisions solely upon those reports. This procedure is anathema to the concept of enquiry which otherwise means affording the dealer an opportunity of a fair hearing.” 8. Considering all these aspects, it appears that, as originally the inspection was made basing on the complaint of the local MLC, it is to be believed that at the political instance only, the so-called inspection was made and basing on the report of the inspection officials, the authorization of the petitioner was cancelled. Therefore, in our view, the Order passed by the Respondent No. 3 cancelling the authorization of the petitioner is passed without following the procedure to be followed in disciplinary enquiries and as such, it is illegal, arbitrary and unjust. In the Order of the Appellate Authority/Respondent No. 2 also, the Respondent No. 2 did not record any valid reasons for not considering the appeal filed by the petitioner and to confirm the orders of the respondent No. 3. Therefore, it appears, in a mechanical way these orders are passed which are unsustainable under law. Therefore, the Order passed by the Respondent No. 3, which was confirmed by the Respondent No. 2 is liable to be set aside. 9. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions: (i) The Proceedings in Ref. No. 1(4)/490/2019, dated 13.01.2010 of the respondent No. 3, which was confirmed by the Respondent No. 2 vide Proceedings in Ref. No. 1(3)/79/2020, is set aside. (ii) The respondents are directed to continue the petitioner as Fair Price Shop Dealer as usual. 10. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.