Allowed

Smt.L.Lakshmi Kala v. The Joint Collector

Andhra Pradesh HC11 Nov 2019WP/12594/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a writ petition challenging the suspension of a Fair Price Shop dealer's authorization. The court held that the impugned order was illegal and arbitrary without application of mind. It set aside the proceedings and directed the restoration of the authorization.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in Ref.No.I(4)/874/2019 dated 23.08.2019 were set aside as illegal and arbitrary; the petitioner's authorization was directed to be continued pending final orders.

Smt.L.Lakshmi Kala Vs The Joint Collector — Consumer Protection | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.12594 of 2019

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the proceedings in Ref.No.I(4)/874/2019, dated 23.08.2019, issued by the 1^st respondent, wherein, the authorization of this petitioner for F.P.Shop No.1114030 is suspended during pendency of the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act (for short ‘the Act’), issued by the Joint Collector, Kadapa District and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary and consequently, set aside the proceedings, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to restore the Fair Price Shop No.1114030 of the petitioner at T.Obayapalli village, Chapadu Mandal, Kadapa District.

¶5

The petitioner was appointed as F.P. Shop dealer No.1114030 of T.Obyayapalli village, Chapadu Mandal of YSR Kadapa District and distributing essential commodities to the cardholders allotted to the shop of the petitioner without any remarks so far. On account of village politics between two groups in the village, a complaint is lodged against this petitioner with the 3^rd respondent, to bring pressure to this petitioner. At their instance, the officials of the 3^rd respondent visited the shop in the months of June and July, 2019 and did not find any irregularities in conducting the business. On verification, the stock as per register, but due to the pressure brought by the political group, the 3^rd respondent submitted a

¶6

¶7

report dated 19.08.2019 to the 1^st respondent without any information to this petitioner without visiting the premises on that particular day and without applying mind, the 1^st respondent passed impugned orders in Ref.No.I(4)/874/2019, dated 23.08.2019, suspending the authorization of this petitioner without any valid reason.

¶8

It is specifically contended that on 26.08.2019, the authorities have visited the shop of the petitioner bearing D.No.1-72 as per license found Rice 1632 Kgs, Sugar 21 Kgs and Toor Dall 20 Kgs and found no variation between the balance of ePos machine and ground balance. However, due to repairs to the shops and cleaning of the shop premises bearing D.No.1-72 for Ganesh Chathurthi, she kept the balance stock outside in the premises bearing D.No.1-83 and at the same time on 26.08.2019, the 3^rd respondent authorities visited and seized the stock of rice 1632 Kgs, Sugar 21 Kgs and Toor dall 20 Kgs, though no variation is found. But only on the ground that this petitioner is carrying business on the premises bearing Door No.1/83 which is not authorized door number and filed proceedings before the Joint Collector, Kadapa District under Section 6-A of the Act. The Joint Collector, Kadapa District initiated the proceedings against this petitioner and passed impugned order, suspending this petitioner’s authorization for the F.P No.8. The same is questioned on the ground that there is no irregularity or illegality in conducting the business by the petitioner. But, the Joint Collector, Kadapa district without

¶9

¶10

applying its mind, passed impugned order contravening the provisions of the (Control) order, 2018, hence, requested to declare the same as illegal and arbitrary and set aside.

¶11

During hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions urged in the petition. Whereas, the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies contended that, carrying on business at the premises bearing Door Number 1/83, instead of 1-72 is contrary to the terms and conditions of authorization and thereby, the petitioner’s authorization is liable to be suspended and confirm the order passed by the Joint Collector’s proceedings in Ref.No.I(4)/874/2019, dated 23.08.2019.

¶12

As seen from the allegations made in various paragraphs of the affidavit, the petitioner was granted authorization to run the shop at Door No.1-72, but whereas the petitioner was allegedly found doing business at Door No.1/83 of T.Obayapalli of Chapadu Mandal. The petitioner is carrying on business in the premises bearing Door Number 1- 72 only. But found the stocks kept in front of the house bearing Door No.1/83, moreover, the impugned order dated 23.08.2019 passed by the Joint Collector, Kadapa District shows that the shop is being run in unauthorized premises bearing D.No.1-72 instead of authorized premises bearing Door No.1/83 of Chapadu Mandal. On verification of the authorization in Form No.2, issued under Rule 5(5), the Fair Price Shop premises is Door No.1-72. Therefore, the order itself refers to Form No.II, issued under Rule 5(5) of the

¶13

¶14

Control Order, 2001. Therefore, there is absolutely no illegality in the allegations made in the petition that the petitioner is carrying on business in the premises bearing Door No.1-72. Hence, the order passed by the 1^st respondent is without application of its mind and the same is liable to be set aside, declaring the same as invalid.

¶15

In the result, the writ petition is allowed, declaring the proceedings in Ref.No.I(4)/874/2019, dated 23.08.2019 issued by the 1^st respondent that the petitioner is doing business in the premises bearing Door No.1/72 instead of Door Number 1/83, is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Form No.II of the Form of Authorization issued under clause 5(5) of the (Control) Order, 2001. Hence, the same is set aside, directing the respondents to continue the authorization of this petitioner, till passing of final order in the proceedings if any pending before the competent authority i.e., the 1^st respondent.

¶16

With the above directions, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.

¶17

The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶18

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶19

Dated 11.11.2019 KA

¶20

Smt.L.Lakshmi Kala v. The Joint Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.L.Lakshmi Kala v. The Joint Collector

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

K G Sugadhan Vs Sri Nageswaraswamy Devastanam

P.Lakshmi Naidu Vs State of Ap

M/s, Indus Towers Limited, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M Adinarayana Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Devaboina Hazarathaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gosala Anjaneyulu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh