Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 41 (AP)

Neelam Navaneetham v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2025-01-06

B.S.BHANUMATHI

body2025
ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer: “…to issue a writ order or orders more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.3 in suspending the dealership Authorization of the petitioner, through proceedings Rc.No.1/3451/2024, dated 16.12.2024, in respect of the Fair Price Shop No.085043 of Ommevaram Village, Naguluppalapadu mandal, Prakasam District, as illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice and violation of Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently to set aside the proceedings Rc.No.1/3451/2024, dated 16.12.2024, in respect of the Fair Price Shop No.085043 of Ommevaram Village, Naguluppalapadu mandal, Prakasam District, issued by the 3rd respondent, by directing the respondents No.3 to 5 to supply the commodities to the petitioner, in respect of the Fair Price Shop No.085043 of Ommevaram Village, Naguluppapadu Mandal, Prakasam Distarict and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Heard Sri Madhava Rao Nalluri, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. 3. The case of the petitioner is as follows: The petitioner is a dealer of Fair Price Shop No.085043 of Ommevaram village, Naguluppulapadu Mandal, Prakasam District. On 09.11.2024, basing on a false complaint, the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Ongole, inspected the shop of the petitioner and found some variations in the stock by preparing panchanama with incorrect recitals. The petitioner paid challan for Rs.21,000/- for release of the stock for the month of December, 2024 and met the 4th and 5th respondents. But, they did not respond. The 4th respondent informed the petitioner that the commodities for the month of December, 2024 would be supplied through the Village Revenue Officer as the 3rd respondent is going to initiate proceedings against the petitioner under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Though the authorization of the petitioner is in force, the respondents No.4 & 5 are trying to avoid supply of commodities to the petitioner. So long as the authorization is in force, the petitioner is entitled to distribute commodities to the cardholders. When the authorities failed to supply commodities to the petitioner, the petitioner filed W.P.No.27748 of 2024 before this Court. Pending the said writ petition, the impugned order suspending the authorization of the petitioner was passed. So long as the authorization is in force, the petitioner is entitled to distribute commodities to the cardholders. When the authorities failed to supply commodities to the petitioner, the petitioner filed W.P.No.27748 of 2024 before this Court. Pending the said writ petition, the impugned order suspending the authorization of the petitioner was passed. The 3rd respondent issued a show-cause notice, dated 24.11.2024, directing the petitioner to submit explanation regarding the alleged irregularities. The petitioner submitted explanation dated 02.12.2024. Without considering the explanation, the 3rd respondent passed the impugned order on 16.12.2024 suspending the dealership of the petitioner. In fact, notice was received by the petitioner on 24.11.2024 and the explanation was submitted on 02.12.2024, since 01.12.2024 a public holiday being Sunday. Therefore, the explanation was submitted within time. As such, passing the impugned order on 16.12.2024 as though the petitioner had not submitted explanation is illegal. Hence, this writ petition is filed. 4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies placed on record the written instructions of the 3rd respondent vide Rc.I/3451/2024, dated Nil/12/2024. 5. As per the written instructions and the show cause notice, the variation in the stock is as follows: Sl. No. Commodity Total received Issued Closing balance Physical balance Variation 1 PDS Fortified Sortex Rice (Kgs) 5673 4245 1428 4484 (+) 3056 Kgs. 2 PDS RG Dal (1 Kg. Pkt.) 400 294 106 156.5 (+)50.5 kgs. 3 Sugar (1/2 kg Pkt.) 374 309 65 153 (+) 88 pkts. 6. A perusal of the explanation submitted by the petitioner would show that excess stock was said to be found in the house of Neelam Rajarao bearing D.No.8-72 and the petitioner disclaimed the said stock and thus denied the allegation of excess stock. The petitioner further stated in the explanation that the authorities obtained signature on empty paper and the same was filed later to suit the case. These are the issues, which need to be examined during regular enquiry. There cannot be an interim order of suspension for an indefinite period. However, on comparison of the alleged variation and the explanation, there seems to be no need to interfere with the impugned order, but the same requires an enquiry within a short period as per law. 7. In this regard, it is apt to note that this Court in C. Durga Srinivas Rao and Ors. However, on comparison of the alleged variation and the explanation, there seems to be no need to interfere with the impugned order, but the same requires an enquiry within a short period as per law. 7. In this regard, it is apt to note that this Court in C. Durga Srinivas Rao and Ors. vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., 2015(6) ALD 359 prescribed a detailed procedure to be followed and it observed at para No.26 as follows: 26. From a conjoined reading of the provisions of the Control Order, more particularly clause 5 and 24 read with the decisions of this Court, the following conclusions can be drawn. "(i) The appointing authority can suspend the authorization under clause 5(5) of the Control Order, if grave charges exist and the case warrants suspension, but should not be exercised in a routine manner without applying mind; (ii) The power of suspension under clause 5(5) of the Control Order includes the power to suspend the authorization pending enquiry and no show cause notice is necessary before exercising such power; (iii) The order of suspension should be followed by a show cause notice immediately by specifying the charges in clear terms and giving sufficient time to the dealer to submit his/her explanation; (iv) The charges so levelled may contain two parts viz., one, containing serious charges, which may attract the cancellation of authorization and another containing marginal variations and minor irregularities at fair price shops as indicated in clause 24 of the Control Order. (v) While issuing the show cause notice, the appointing authority shall enclose a copy of the report of any subordinate officer or a copy of the complaints received, which prompted him to take action; (vi) After receiving the explanation from the dealer, in case of denial by him, the appointing authority shall hold an enquiry and prove the charges levelled against the dealer. Such enquiry should be fair by placing the material before the dealer but cannot be elevated to the level of a regular court trial. The burden lies on the appointing authority to prove charges. The responsibility to hold enquiry shall not be delegated; (vii) The enquiry shall be completed as soon as possible but not later than ninety days from the date of suspension. The burden lies on the appointing authority to prove charges. The responsibility to hold enquiry shall not be delegated; (vii) The enquiry shall be completed as soon as possible but not later than ninety days from the date of suspension. After completion of enquiry, the appointing authority shall record reasons in respect of each charge and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the Control Order. (viii) The order so passed should be communicated to the dealer immediately and shall not be implemented till the expiry of 30 days, the period for preferring appeal. (ix) It has to be noted that in all cases of proven charges, it is not necessary for the appointing authority to cancel the authorization and in appropriate cases, he/she can pass suitable orders imposing penalty or let off with a warning." 8. As such, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent authorities to conclude the enquiry in the light of the above decision within two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the impugned order stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.