Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 524 (AP)

Chitti Ramamurthy v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2023-03-10

M.GANGA RAO

body2023
ORDER: This writ petition is filed to issue writ of certiorari to call for records relating to the order in D.Dis.SR(A)No.09/2017/S2 dated 15.07.2017 passed by the 2nd respondent thereby, confirming the order in D.Dis.SR(A)No.09/2016/S2 dated 27.2.2017 passed by the 3rd respondent, while confirming the proceedings Rc.No.176/2014/CS, dated 12.08.2016 of the 4th respondent and set aside the same as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 (for short ‘Control Order, 2018). 2. The petitioner is a permanent Fair Price Shop Dealer of Shop No.29 of Lankam Village, Srikakulam Rural Mandal, Srikakulam District appointed in the year 1985 and since then, he has been distributing the essential commodities to the cardholders without any complaint from any quarter. While things stood thus, on 21.01.2015, the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Enforcement Department along with Village Revenue Officer and Revenue Inspector (CS), inspected the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop and verified the stocks available in the shop and found variations in the stocks and prepared mediatornama and submitted a report to the Tahsildar, Srikakulam stating that at the time of inspection, on verification of the records they found variation in stocks viz., (1) PDS Rice 45.99 Qtls; (2) deficit Sugar 1.82 Qtls; (3) Chandranna Sankranthi Kanukalu (Free of cost) RG Dall 183 kgs; (4) P. Oil 185 ltrs; (5) Atta 370 kgs; (6) Bengalgram 183 kgs; (7) Jaggery 183.5 kgs; (8) Ghee 54.700 grams and initiated 6-A proceedings. The 4th respondent issued a show-cause notice dated 03.02.2015 asking the petitioner to submit explanation as to why his authorization should not be cancelled. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the show-cause notice on 20.02.2015 stating that the commodities were distributed to the cardholders properly, but due to crowd at that time and due to lack of assistance in the fair price shop, he was unable to enter the distributed stocks in the concerned registers and he could not obtain signatures or thumb impressions properly at that time and all of a sudden, the respondent authorities visited the shop and seized the registers. Again, the Revenue Divisional Officer – 4th respondent issued notice dated 02.03.2015 asking the petitioner to appear in person on 09.03.2015 and accordingly, he appeared in person and denied the false charges leveled against him and requested to drop further proceedings. Again, the Revenue Divisional Officer – 4th respondent issued notice dated 02.03.2015 asking the petitioner to appear in person on 09.03.2015 and accordingly, he appeared in person and denied the false charges leveled against him and requested to drop further proceedings. However, the 4th respondent issued proceedings dated 31.03.2015 cancelling the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop authorization. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.12251 of 2015 and the combined High Court, by order dated 24.04.2015, passed orders in W.P.M.P.No.16157 of 2015 suspending the operation of the impugned order dated 31.03.2015. Subsequently, the said Writ Petition was disposed of on 07.07.2015 setting aside the cancellation order dated 31.03.2015 and remanded the matter for conducting fresh enquiry and pass appropriate orders within three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Pursuant to the orders of this Court, the 4th respondent issued fresh show-cause-notice dated 13.08.2015 to the petitioner, to which he submitted his explanation on 24.08.2015 denying the allegations made therein. Thereafter, the 4th respondent passed orders dated 12.08.2016 cancelling the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop authorization. Against the said cancellation order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Joint Collector along with the stay petition. When no orders passed, the petitioner filed W.P.No.43614 of 2016 and the combined High Court, by order dated 15.12.2016 disposed of the writ petition directing the 2nd respondent therein to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner within a period of eight weeks. The 2nd respondent therein dismissed the appeal by proceedings dated 27.02.2017. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner filed Revision before the 2nd respondent herein. The 2nd respondent without conducting any enquiry and examining the material evidence available on record passed order dated 15.07.2017, confirming the orders dated 12.08.2016 and 27.02.2017. Assailing the impugned orders, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. The 4th respondent Revenue Divisional Officer filed counter affidavit stating that the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Enforcement Department along with two Village Revenue Officers inspected the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop on 21.01.2015 and found variations in the stock and booked 6-A case. Based on the report of the Tahsildar, Srikakulam, the Revenue Divisional Officer issued a show cause notice dated 03.02.2015 to the petitioner, to which he submitted his explanation on 20.02.2015. A notice was issued to the petitioner to attend for personal hearing before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam on 09.03.2015. Based on the report of the Tahsildar, Srikakulam, the Revenue Divisional Officer issued a show cause notice dated 03.02.2015 to the petitioner, to which he submitted his explanation on 20.02.2015. A notice was issued to the petitioner to attend for personal hearing before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam on 09.03.2015. The petitioner attended the personal hearing and stated that on the day of inspection, due to large number of cardholders present in the Fair Price Shop he could not enter the details in the sales register and requested to drop all further proceedings. Considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner and based on the record, the 4th respondent came to the conclusion that the irregularities committed by the Fair Price Shop Dealer are grave in nature and held that the charges are held proved and the petitioner’s authorization was cancelled by the impugned order dated 31.03.2015. Pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.12251 of 2015, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam issued fresh show cause notice to the petitioner on 13.08.2015 and a notice was issued to attend the personal hearing. The petitioner attended personally before the Revenue Divisional Officer and submitted his explanation. After conducting fresh enquiry and not satisfied with the explanation in the personal hearing, the disciplinary authority cancelled the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop Authorization vide proceedings dated 12.08.2016. The petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority and pursuant to the orders dated 15.12.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.No.43614 of 2016, the appellate authority has once again ordered to verify with the cardholders in the locality and finally dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. Against the same, the petitioner filed Revision before the 2nd respondent – District Collector, Srikakulam, who after elaborately considering the grounds raised by the petitioner dismissed the revision vide proceedings dated 15.7.2017. 4. Sri Srinivas Ambati, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the disciplinary authority has not conducted the enquiry properly by giving personal hearing to the petitioner in spite of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.12151 of 2015 dated 07.07.2015 and the Joint Collector/appellate authority and the Revisional Authority have failed to consider appeal in its proper perspective and came to the conclusion that the petitioner has committed irregularities in distribution of essential commodities and dismissed the appeal and revisions. The appellate and revisional authorities were carried away by the confiscation proceedings passed by the competent authority under 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the impugned order is contrary to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control), Order, 2008. 5. Per contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies would contend that the 4th respondent passed the impugned order considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner and based on the enquiry report submitted by the Tahsildar, Srikakulam Mandal as required under the provisions of clause 8 (4) of the Control Order, 2018. The enquiry conducted by the Tahsildar is sufficient as the petitioner was given opportunity but the same was not availed by him and as such, the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity and it does not warrant any interference by this Court. The appeal and revision filed by the petitioner were considered by the appellate and revisional authorities in its proper perspective after conducting enquiry and giving opportunity of personal hearing and dismissed the same following the instructions issued by the Commissioner of Civil Supplies from time to time and there is no illegality or irregularity. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the submission of the counsel petitioner and on perusal of the record, this Court found that the petitioner’s shop was inspected by the Vigilance and Enforcement Officials and found variation of stocks i.e. (1) PDS Rice 45.99 Qtls; (2) Sugar 1.82 Qtls; (3) Chandranna Sankranthi kanukalu (Free of cost) RG Dall 183 kgs; (4) P. Oil 185 ltrs; (5) Atta 370 kgs; (6) Bengalgram 183 kgs; (7) Jaggery 183.5 kgs; (8) Ghee 54.700 grams,. The Tahsildar submitted a report to the Revenue Divisional Officer to initiate proceedings under 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and also disciplinary proceedings under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control), Order, 2008. The disciplinary authority issued a show-cause-notice to the petitioner asking him to submit his explanation. The petitioner submitted his explanation. The disciplinary authority after conducting enquiry cancelled the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop authorization and the same was set aside by this Court in W.P.No.12251 of 2015 and remanded the matter to the disciplinary authority for conducting enquiry. The petitioner was again issued a show cause notice calling for his explanation, to which he submitted explanation his dated 24.08.2015. The disciplinary authority after conducting enquiry cancelled the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop authorization and the same was set aside by this Court in W.P.No.12251 of 2015 and remanded the matter to the disciplinary authority for conducting enquiry. The petitioner was again issued a show cause notice calling for his explanation, to which he submitted explanation his dated 24.08.2015. The Revenue Divisional Officer conducted enquiry and gave personal hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner has not disputed the variation in the stocks but only submits that due to rush and crowd, he could not enter the distribution of stocks in the registers and failed to take signatures and thumb impressions in the registers. The petitioner failed to produce any documentary evidence in support of his claim with regard to variation in the stocks and there is no illegality or irregularity in passing the cancellation of the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop authorization. The Joint Collector while hearing the appeal got enquired into the charge of variation of stocks maintained in the Fair Price Shop and to verify with the cardholders in the locality on the claims made by the petitioner. As per the instructions of Joint Collector, Srikakulam, the Deputy Tahsildar (Enforcement), Revenue Divisional Office, Srikakulam and Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, Tahsildar Office, Srikakulam and CS RI inspected the fair price shop and locality of Lankam Village on 20.01.2017 at 5.00 PM and open enquiry was conducted in two places i.e., at Gram Panchayat Office, Lankam and second one near the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop and before conducting open enquiry, a beat of tom tom has been made in the village by the Village Revenue Assistant of Lankam Village requesting the cardholders of Lankam Fair Price Shop to be present during the enquiry. In the enquiry, some of the villagers have stated that commodities were distributed to the cardholders properly, but due to Sankrathri festival and over crowd at that time and due to lack of assistance in the Fair Price Shop, the petitioner was unable to enter the distributed stocks in the concerned registers and he could not obtain signatures or thumb impressions properly and some of the cardholders have stated that the petitioner was opening Fair Price Shop only for 5 to 8 days in a month and essential commodities were being distributed at more prices and distributed the essential commodities with less weighments and if anybody questioned, he used to give reply in a rude manner. The Joint Collector, notwithstanding to the village level issues, concluded that there were lapses on the part of the dealer and during inspections, physical variations in stocks were observed and 6-A case also went against the petitioner leading to 80% confiscation of seized stocks. It is the bounden duty of the dealer to properly maintain the ledgers, besides stock registers properly and dismissed the appeal by proceedings dated 27.02.2017. Against which, the petitioner filed Revision before the 2nd respondent/District Collector, Srikakulam. The District Collector after elaborately considering the rival contentions, perused the record and after giving personal hearing to the petitioner dismissed the revision. 7. In view of the above discussion, this Court found that pursuant to the orders passed in W.P.No.12251 of 2015 dated 07.07.2015, the disciplinary authority has conducted enquiry properly and after affording opportunity of personal hearing and considering the explanations submitted by the petitioner on 20.02.2015, 24.08.2015 wherein, the petitioner categorically admitted that due to crowd at the time of distribution and lack of assistance in the fair price shop, he could not enter the distributed stocks in the registers without obtaining any signatures and thumb impressions and also considering the 6A case under the provisions of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 has rightly passed the impugned order of cancellation of authorization of the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop. The appellate and revisional authorities have conducted enquiry and after affording the opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner held that the charges held against the applicant are grave in nature and rightly dismissed the appeal and revision. The appellate and revisional authorities have conducted enquiry and after affording the opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner held that the charges held against the applicant are grave in nature and rightly dismissed the appeal and revision. Thus, the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that no proper enquiry was conducted and no opportunity was given to the petitioner and petitioner’s explanation was not considered is unsustainable and has no legs to stand. The impugned orders are perfectly legal, valid and warrant no interference. 8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending for consideration, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.