Dismissed

Dontu Channa Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Nov 2019WP/11849/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Writ Petition challenged the inaction of respondents in supplying essential commodities to a fair price shop after its authorization was suspended. The Court held that supply cannot continue without cancellation of the suspension order and dismissed the petition with liberty to challenge the suspension proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Direction to supply essential commodities was refused; Writ Petition dismissed with liberty to challenge suspension proceedings.

Dontu Channa Rao, Vs The State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 11849 of 2019

¶4

ORDER:

¶5

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed questioning the inaction of the respondents in not supplying the essential commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop bearing No.0624009 for distribution of the same to the card holders allotted to his fair price shop, while handing over the commodities to the fair price shop bearing No.0624007 of P. Saraswathi under Panchanama dt. 12.08.2019, without any order of suspension or cancellation as per Clause 8 (4) of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 (for short “the Control Order, 2018”) and declare the same as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, issue a direction to supply essential commodities for distribution of the same to the card holders till termination of his authorization.

¶6

The case of the petitioner is that in pursuance of the Notification issued by Respondent No.2 in RC C1/288624009/2018, dt. 20.10.2018, for appointment of fair price shop dealer for the shop bearing No. 0624009 of Janardhana Varam Village, Chatrai Mandal, Krishna District, he applied and appeared for written examination conducted on 02.12.2018 and as he secured 53 marks in the examination,

¶7

a shop was allotted to the petitioner while issuing Authorization in Form-II, Authorization No.10/624009NZD/2018, dt. 29.12.2018. Since the date of his appointment, he is distributing the essential commodities to the card holders allotted without any remark.

¶8

While so, on 12.08.2019, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 along with their staff inspected the fair price shop of the petitioner and seized certain essential commodities under cover of panchanama and the details are shown hereunder:

¶9

Sl.No.	Details of item	Stock reserved as per CPS ( in Kgs)	Stock reserved during verification ( in KGs)	Difference
1.	Rice ( PDS)	1638.675	--	--
2.	Rice ( ICDS)	---	----	-----
3.	Rice (MDM)	0.900	----	----
4.	Rice reserved	850.000	---	---
	Total Rice	2489.575	2466.700	(-)0.22.875
5.	Sugar	58.876	59.500	(+)0.00.500
6.	Kerosene	210.000 lts	198.500 ltrs	(-)0.11.500 lts
7.	Palm Oil (ICDS)	0.500 ml	----	(-) 0.500 ml

¶10

¶11

The main contention of the petitioner is that in the absence of any order either suspension or cancellation of his authorization passed under Clause 8 (4) of the Control Order, 2018, the respondents are bound to supply essential commodities to the fair price shop of the petitioner.

¶12

During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions urged in the Petition, whereas the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies placed on record, a copy of the Order of suspension passed under Rule 8 (4) of the Control Order, 2018. When the authorization of the petitioner was suspended by Order 28.08.2019, this Court cannot issue a direction to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner for distribution as the authorization of the petitioner is suspended during pendency of the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that no such order dt. 28.08.2019 is served on the petitioner, but this Court cannot decide whether such order of suspension is served or not in view of the relief claimed in this Petition. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to claim the said relief in the Writ Petition, unless the Order dt. 28.08.2019 passed

¶14

¶15

under Rule 8(4) of the Control Order, 2018, is set aside. Therefore, the present Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶16

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the Petitioner is given liberty to challenge the proceedings dt. 28.08.2019 before appropriate authority. No costs.

¶17

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶18

¶19

Date: 14-11-2019. M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J

¶20

eha

¶21

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶23

W.P. No. 11849 of 2019

¶24

Dt. 14-11-2019

¶25

eha

Dontu Channa Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dontu Channa Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. K.Venkata Lakshmamma Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Anjali Charitable Trust, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Ghousia Begum, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

K Balarama Murthy Vs the State of Ap

V K Mani Vs the Govt. of Ap

S. Somu Rajeswara Reddy Vs the State of Ap