Allowed

K. Bharathi, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Nov 2019WP/15388/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the inaction of authorities in releasing essential commodities to a Fair Price Shop dealer and non-release of an ePos machine following stock inspection. The High Court, relying on a Full Bench decision, directed the respondents to release the commodities and machinery.

What did the court decide?

Direction to release essential commodities, ePos machine, and electronic weighing scale within one week for distribution to card holders.

K. Bharathi, Vs The State of Andhra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶2

Writ Petition No.15388 of 2019

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is filed, questioning the inaction of respondent Nos.7 to 10 in seizing the premises of Fair Price Shop, bearing shop No.1258034, S. Beerepalli village, Parigi Mandal, Ananthapuramu District and also took away ePos machine on 13.09.2019 and also the action of the respondent Nos.5 and 6 in not releasing the essential commodities inspite of remitting demand draft for release of stock, declare the same as illegal and arbitrary, consequently issue direction to the respondents to release the stock, in favour of the petitioner to distribute the same to the card holders.

¶5

The petitioner is appointed as Fair Price Shop dealer on permanent basis by 5^th respondent vide letter No.1154/2011 C dated 07.06.2011. While he is continuing his dealership, on 13.09.2019, respondent Nos.7 to 10, visited the Fair Price Shop, seized certain essential commodities under the cover of mediators report, finding variation between the stock shown in the ePos machine and ground balance. On the basis of the report filed by respondent Nos.7 to 10, the Joint Collector initiated proceedings under Section 6-A of Essential Commodities Act (for short ‘E.C Act’). No proceedings under Clause 8 (4) of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 (for short ‘Control Order, 2018’) is passed till date, except initiation of proceedings under Section 6-A of E.C Act. Therefore, non-supply of essential commodities to the petitioner, in the absence of any order is illegal.

¶6

2 MSM, J wp_15388_ 2019

¶7

During hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that in the absence of any order under Clause 8 (4) of Control Order, 2018, the action of the respondents in not supplying the essential commodities to the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop for distribution to the card holders allotted to the shop is a grave illegality.

¶8

Whereas the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, supported the order on the ground that, much variation is found between the ground balance and balance as per ePos machine and also contended that this Court already passed an order in I.A No.1 of 2019 in this writ petition, directing respondents to supply essential commodities to the petitioner for distribution of the same to the card holders, allotted to the shop of the petitioner and placed copy of the order passed by this Court on 01.10.2019 and requested to dismiss the petition.

¶9

It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner was appointed as a permanent dealer vide Lr.No.1154/2011 C, dated 07.06.2011, issued by 5^th respondent and it is also not in quarrel that an inspection was conducted, found certain variation. But whether the variation is a deliberate violation or not is subject matter of proceedings pending before the Joint Collector under Section 6-A of E.C Act and this Court is not required to decide such an issue, which is subject matter pending before the Joint Collector.

¶10

Though the petitioner claimed release of premises, enabling the petitioner to carry on business, on the ground that the premises was

¶11

3 MSM, J wp_15388_ 2019

¶12

also seized, but the report clearly shows that only essential commodities were seized, not the premises. Thereby question of release of premises from the seizure does not arise and the petitioner is deemed to be in possession and enjoyment of the Fair Price Shop premises. Hence, I am not inclined to issue any direction in the absence of proof that premises was also seized.

¶13

The other contention of the petitioner is that the respondents are not releasing the essential commodities for distribution, even though no order under Clause 8 (4) of Control Order, 2018 is passed by Joint Collector. This issue is no more res intigra in view of the law declared by Full Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Oleti Tirupathamma v. District Supply Officer (City) Visakhapatnam and others¹ . By applying the law laid down by Full Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, I deem it appropriate to issue a direction to release the essential commodities to the petitioner, enabling him to distribute to the card holders, allotted to the petitioner’s shop and also a direction to release the ePos machine and electronic weighing scale, for distribution in terms of Control Order, 2018 within a week from today.

¶14

With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶15

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

¶16

JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶17

Dated 08.11.2019 Rvk

¶18

1 2002 (1) ALD 577

K. Bharathi, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Bharathi, 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D Satishbabu Vs the State of Ap

Ts Marketing, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

The West Godavari Dist. Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd, Vs the State of Ap

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