Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 574 (AP)

K. Venkata Lakshmi v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2023-03-16

D.RAMESH

body2023
ORDER : The Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking to declare the order issued by the 3rd respondent vide Ro.No.117-1/2021, dated 17.02.2022 cancelling the petitioner’s authorization for the fair price shop No.0316026, Gannavaram Village, Nathavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District contrary to the order passed by this Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.22594/2021 and without assigning any valid reasons and without following the procedure as contemplated under APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018 as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned orders dated 10.08.2020 is contrary to the directions issued by this Hon’ble Court in earlier Writ Petition filed by the petitioner i.e., W.P.No.22594 of 2021. The said Writ Petition is disposed of on 06.10.2021, the operative portion reads as follows: “Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of the learned counsel and on perusal of the material record, this Court, in the interests of justice, felt it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the 2nd respondent to complete the final enquiry as contemplated under the provisions of clause 8(4) of Control Order, 2018, and as per the law laid down by this Court in the case of 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 , by conducting enquiry to prove the charges against the petitioner by adducing evidence and give an opportunity to the petitioner to cross examine the witness and to defend the petitioner’s case in the enquiry and pass orders as expeditiously as possible, within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner” 3. In the above said orders this Hon’ble Court specifically directed the parties to conduct enquiry as per observations made by this Court in B.Manjula v. District Collector, Civil Supplies Kurnool and others. But contrary to the said directions the respondents have passed the present impugned orders dated 17.02.2022. 4. In the above said orders this Hon’ble Court specifically directed the parties to conduct enquiry as per observations made by this Court in B.Manjula v. District Collector, Civil Supplies Kurnool and others. But contrary to the said directions the respondents have passed the present impugned orders dated 17.02.2022. 4. To support his contention he has mainly relied on the references made to the said impugned orders i.e., reference No.1 is Rc.No.45/2021/ of Assistant Supply Officer, Narsipatnam, dated 24.07.2020, reference No.2 is show cause notice of the Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam, dated 10.08.2020, reference No.4 is proceedings of the Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam dated 10.08.2020, reference No.5 is explanation submitted by the petitioner dated 06.09.2021, reference No.6 is orders passed by this Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.22594 of 2021, reference No.7 is the complaints received from the cardholders of Gannavaram Village, Nathavaram Mandal, dated 28.12.2021 and the final reference is the notice in Rc.No.177-1/2022/F, dated 04.02.2022 and opportunity is given for personal hearing and heard the arguments of the fair price shop dealer on 14.02.2022. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that inspite of direction given by this Court, the respondents have not conducted any enquiry expect issuing show cause notice to the petitioner and after submitting the explanation and after giving opportunity of hearing, the respondents have passed the present impugned orders. When there is a specific direction to conduct enquiry as per the observations made by this Hon’ble Court in B.Manjula v. District Collector, Civil Supplies Kurnool and others. The observations of this Hon’ble Court in the above said judgment reads as follows: “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 compliant, they must also be examined in the presence of the dealer or his/her lawyer and the dealer shall be given an opportunity of crossexamining 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.” 6. 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.” 6. As observed by this Hon’ble Court in the above said paragraph that the authorities has to conduct an enquiry recording the sworn statement of the dealer and witness from his/her side and statements of the cardholders or other persons if complaints are made must be examined in the presence of the dealer or his lawyer and by giving an opportunity for cross-examining the said persons and the Licensing/Disciplinary authority shall supply all the reports to the dealer, in which he is likely to place reliance to the detriment of the dealer. But in the instant case, no such procedure has been followed by the respondents while passing the present impugned orders. 7. Reply to the said allegations, the 3rd respondent has filed counter stating that as directed by this Hon’ble Court, the 2nd respondent has contemplated enquiry in 6A case, after giving opportunity to the petitioner and passed orders on 01.10.2021 and after that the RDO issued notice to the fair price shop dealer i.e., the present petitioner, complainants and civil supplies authorities to attend enquiry on 14.02.2022 and enquired the matter, framed charges and called for the explanation. Based on the report of 6A case of the Assistant Supply Officer, Narsipatnam, the Joint Collector issued show cause notice to the petitioner calling for explanation to the charges. Later, the authorization of the petitioner was suspended, pending the enquiry. 8. After disposal of the Writ Petition, the 3rd respondent has issued notice to the petitioner, complainant and the Civil Supplies Officer, Narsipatnam and Deputy Tahsildar (CS) to attend enquiry on 14.02.2022 vide notice dated 04.02.2022. The said notice was acknowledged by the petitioner. Hence, it is abundantly clear that an opportunity was given to the petitioner. As the explanation is not convincing, the authorization was cancelled. 9. The said notice was acknowledged by the petitioner. Hence, it is abundantly clear that an opportunity was given to the petitioner. As the explanation is not convincing, the authorization was cancelled. 9. Based on the above averments, the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents have placed reliance on the notice issued to the petitioner on 04.02.2022 and also the statements recorded from the petitioner as well as the mediators and finally submitted that after conducting enquiry and after taking statements from the petitioner as well as the mediators, the authorities have passed the present impugned orders. Hence, they have complied the orders passed by this Hon’ble as well as the procedure contemplated under the Act. In view of the same required to dismiss the Writ Petition. 10. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also considering the orders passed by this Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.22594 of 2021, wherein this Hon’ble Court specifically directed the authorities to follow the provisions of Clause 8(4) of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 and also observations made by this Hon’ble Court in B.Manjula v. District Collector, Civil Supplies Kurnool and others, to conduct enquiry. 11. It is not in dispute that in the above said judgment this Hon’ble Court has categorically held that enquiry should be conducted recording the sworn statements from the dealer and the complainants or witnesses and the enquiry must be conducted in the presence of the dealer and should be given an opportunity for cross examining the witness and also by supplying copies of the reports to the dealer for submitting his/her explanation. 12. On perusal of the impugned orders, the respondents have not followed the principles laid down in the above said judgment while conducting the enquiry. On perusal of the counter, they have not stated anything about the enquiry even on perusal of the statements filed along with the counter is also reveals that they have not taken statements from the cardholders, they have taken statements only from the mediators. Even in the said statement they have stated only what happened on the day of inspection noting more than. 13. Even in the said statement they have stated only what happened on the day of inspection noting more than. 13. Considering the submissions and also the observations made by this Hon’ble Court in B.Manjula v. District Collector, Civil Supplies Kurnool and others, this Court has no agitation to say that the impugned orders are contrary to the observations made by this Hon’ble Court in the above judgment. Hence, the impugned proceedings are set aside, remanding the matter to the authorities for reconsideration as observed by this Hon’ble Court in B.Manjula v. District Collector, Civil Supplies Kurnool and others. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.