Allowed

Bejawada Srilatha at Majji v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Dec 2019WP/13317/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court declared an order suspending a Fair Price Shop dealer's authorization illegal and arbitrary. The suspension was passed without recording specific reasons or providing an opportunity to the petitioner, violating natural justice principles established in Tappers Co-operative Society.

What did the court decide?

Declared the impugned suspension order dated 22.08.2019 illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to law; set aside the order.

Bejawada Srilatha at Majji Vs The State of… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.13317 OF 2019

¶3

ORDER:-

¶4

This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed, declaring the action of the 3^rd respondent in issuing proceedings in D.C.No.26/2019/G6/dt.22.08.2019 suspending the petitioner’s authorization of dealership during the pendency of enquiry for the F.P. Shop No.0217015 of T. Burjavalasa Village, Dattirajeru Mandal, Vizianagaram District, is illegal and arbitrary.

¶5

The petitioner was appointed as Fair Price Shop dealer in the year 2014 for the F.P. Shop No.0217015 of T. Burjavalasa Village, Dattirajeru Mandal, Vizianagaram District by appointing authority. Since the date of the appointment, the petitioner has been distributing essential commodities to the cardholders without any complaint. The respondents introduced electronic public distribution system during the year 2018 under which the Fair Price Shop dealer has to sell essential commodities by using e-Pos and e-weighing devices. The e-Pos means a device used for electronic point of sale to be used and operated at Fair Price Shops for identification of entitled persons and house holds for delivery of essential commodities with Adhaar based authentication or other authentication tools, specified from time to time by Central Government. e-weighing scale is used to weigh the essential commodities to distribute to the beneficiaries by the fair shop

¶6

¶7

dealer. For electronic public distribution of essential commodities, internet connection is required and during the initial stages, internet connection in the village was very poor and whenever there was poor signal, the petitioner used to supply essential commodities in the 1^st floor to get internet signal by taking e-Pos, e-weighing scale and essential commodities, used to distribute the essential commodities to cardholders. Due to change of political party in power, after General Elections 2019 and at the instance of ruling party, the respondents bent upon to remove the dealership of this petitioner.

¶8

While so, on 05.08.2019, the Deputy Tahsildar and Village Revenue Officer inspected the F.P shop of this petitioner, not found any irregularities, found that the stocks are intact and confirmed by e-Pos device. The Inspecting Officials also recorded the statement of this petitioner in the presence of witnesses. Since no irregularities are found, the petitioner continued to distribute the essential commodities to the respective card holders for the month of August 2019. The petitioner has also deposited the amount for taking delivery of essential commodities by way of online challan. But the petitioner issued the suspension order issued by the 3^rd respondent in the proceedings impugned in this Writ Petition, suspending the authorization of this petitioner with false allegations. Since no notice was received and no opportunity was given to this petitioner to explain the reasons to the statements made against this petitioner. The impugned order without

¶9

¶10

specifying the period of suspension, is contrary to the principles of natural justice and requested to set aside the same.

¶11

During the hearing, Ms. T.V. Sridevi, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order is bereft of any reasons for placing the authorization of this petitioner under suspension, without affording any opportunity to the petitioner is illegal and arbitrary and requested to set aside the same. It is further contended that the petitioner filed an appeal under Clause 24 sub-clause (b) of A.P State Targeted Public Distribution (System) Control Order, 2018. The appeal was not pressed during pendency of this writ petition and filed a copy of a memo filed before the Collector, Vizianagaram, dated 13.11.2019. Hence, the question of prosecuting simultaneous or parallel proceedings does not arise and as on date, only this writ petition is pending.

¶12

Whereas, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, supported the order impugned in this writ petition on the ground that the reasons recorded are sufficient and the order is in strict adherence of principles of natural justice. The allegations against this petitioner are serious in nature and no prior notice is required to be issued, affording opportunity to petitioner to explain the violation and exercised Clause 8 sub-clause (4) of A.P State Targeted Public Distribution (System) Control Order, 2018.

¶13

The main ground urged by the petitioner before this Court is that the petitioner was not given any opportunity, thereby the

¶14

¶15

impugned order passed by the 3^rd respondent, is in sheer violation of principles of natural justice.

¶16

No doubt, the authorization of this petitioner is placed under suspension, but no notice was issued as contemplated under Clause 8 sub-clause (4) of A.P State Targeted Public Distribution (System) Control Order, 2018. In addition to that, the 3^rd respondent recorded the reasons for placing the authorization of this petitioner under suspension during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings initiated under Clause 20 sub-clause (i) of A.P State Targeted Public Distribution (System) Control Order, 2018. Therefore, the reason is sufficient to convey the cause for suspending the authorization of this petitioner. On account of not recording reasons, suspension order cannot be set aside. In addition to it, the impugned order cannot be set aside on the ground that no notice was given and no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner before passing such order of suspension by exercising the power under Clause 8 sub-clause (4) of A.P State Targeted Public Distribution (System) Control Order, 2018. Hence, the ground urged by this petitioner is without any substance and the same is hereby rejected.

¶17

The other contention raised by the learned counsel for petitioner is that when the Fair Price Shop of this petitioner was inspected the inspecting authorities have found no irregularities and moreover statement of the petitioner was not recorded in the presence of mediators. But this fact is not substantiated by any

¶18

¶19

material. On the other hand, violation mentioned in the impugned order are as follows :

¶20

1) The fair shop dealer shall distribute EC’s to the card holders, through electronic point of sale concnnected with e-weighing scales or other mode as indicated by the State Government and should not use unauthorized measuring units such as tins, vessels, stones (Stamped or unstamped), etc.,. In this case the dealer has used tins instead of e-weighing machine for distribution of EC’s to the card holders duly violating clause 6 (C) & 10 (d) of Targeted Public Distribution System, Control Order, 2018 which are the major violations.

¶21

2) The dealer has collecting higher rates for selling the EC stocks to the cardholders violating clause 12(m) of Targeted Public Distribution System, Control Order, 2018.

¶22

3) The fair shop dealer shall issue net quantity of commodity as per the entitlement of beneficiary by reducing tare weight of bag/container of the beneficiary. In this case the dealer has violated clause 12 (j) of Targeted Public Distribution System, Control Order, 2018.

¶23

4) The fair shop dealer shall display the scales of issue and retail issue prices on a notice board at prominent place in the shop on daily basis. In this instance case the dealer has not exhibited the price list violating clause 12 (n) of Targeted Public Distribution System, Control Order, 2018.

¶24

The violations complained are serious in nature, such violations would cause loss to the card holders, who are receiving essential commodities distributed by this petitioner. Whether these allegations are true or not, cannot be decided at this stage while deciding the legality under Clause 8 sub-clause (4) of A.P

¶25

¶26

State Targeted Public Distribution (System) Control Order, 2018. Though the suspension order is passed, no specific reasons for placing authorization during pendency of writ petition is recorded. When, an order is passed suspending the authorization of this petitioner, respondent No.3 has to record reasons for immediate suspension of authorization of this petitioner. More particularly, the petitioner may interfere with the disciplinary proceedings or the petitioner may further indulge in such irregularities so as to case loss to any of the parties. In the absence of any reason, suspending authorization of this petitioner, is illegal and contrary to law. In Tappers Co-operative Society, Maddur v.

¶27

Superintendent of Excise, Mahaboobnagar¹ , Full Bench of High

¶28

Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad held as follows :-

¶29

“However we must make it clear that this incidental or ancillary powers cannot be exercised in a routine way or as a matter of course. The licensing authority is bound to exercise the discretion reasonably, bona fide and, without negligence considering the circumstances of the case when such interim suspension is necessary. If it is possible to given an opportunity to the petitioner and the circumstances do not warrant such a drastic step, the licensing authority is bound to afford an opportunity and the power of suspension pending enquiry should not be exercised as an invariable rule or mode of making an enquiry. Further the suspension pending the enquiry should not be allowed to continue for an unduly long period. The authorities are bound to complete the enquiry as early as possible and any undue delay when it constitutes abuse of power makes the order liable to be set aside. Whether the suspension of license must be preceded by notice or opportunity must depend upon various factors such as, degree of urgency involved, the duration of suspension, the nature

¶30

1 1984 (2) APLJ (HC) 1

¶31

¶32

of the breach, public danger to be avoided, and other similar circumstances which warrant an immediate action where it is not feasible or possible or even advisable to give an opportunity to the holder of the licenses before passing interim orders of suspension.”

¶33

By applying the principle laid down by the Full Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh (referred supra) suspension of authorization of this petitioner without recording any reason during pendency of disciplinary proceedings, is illegal and arbitrary exercise of power. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. As the impugned order in this writ petition is silent except mentioning violations. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside.

¶34

In the result, the writ petition is allowed, declaring the impugned order dated 22.08.2019 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law declared by Full Bench of this Court referred above, consequently the same is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶35

As a squeal, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this writ petition, shall stand closed.

¶36

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶37

Date : .12.2019 Jks

¶38

¶39

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶40

P.D Judgment in W.P.No.13317 of 2019

¶41