Disposed

Munagala Venkateswarlu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC29 Dec 2020WP/13449/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition regarding wrongful allotment of Fair Price Shop supplies. The court directed the authorities to serve the suspension order and show cause notice to the petitioner immediately. It ordered the supply of essential commodities to the petitioner for four weeks while allowing respondents to proceed with the enquiry. The petitioner was granted liberty to file a stat

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to serve suspension order and show cause notice; petitioners to be supplied commodities for four weeks; liberty to file appeal.

Munagala Venkateswarlu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI WRIT PETITION No.13449 of 2019

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents in allotting the essential commodities of the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop to Sri P.Narayana (VRA), without notice to the petitioner and without following due process of law, as arbitrary and illegal, and a consequential direction is sought to the respondents to allow the petitioner to lift and distribute essential commodities.

¶4

The case of the petitioner is that he is the dealer of the Fair Price Shop No.0838021, Anikalapalli Village, Chandrasekarpuram (C.S.Puram) Mandal, Prakasam District, and another shop No.0838020 of Srirampalli Village was also attached to the petitioner’s shop. On 14.8.2019, the Vigilance Authorities inspected the subject shop and found certain variations but the licence is neither suspensed nor cancelled. Even though the petitioner sought for release of the stock for the month of September 2019, the respondents have not released the stock in favour of the petitioner’s shop. Hence, the writ petition is filed.

¶5

When the writ petition came up for admission, on 13.9.2019, the following order in I.A.No.1 of 2019 is passed:

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.

¶7

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as no show cause notice is issued and no enquiry has been conducted and there was no cancellation of authorization of the petitioner, the respondent authorities stopped supplying the essential commodities to the Fair Price Shop of the petitioner.

¶8

Hence, there shall be interim direction as prayed, for a period of two weeks.

¶9

¶10

The counter affidavit along with the vacate stay petition has been filed on 06.11.2019 stating inter alia that during the inspection variations are found and that the dealer failed to produce the authorization, failed to produce legal metrology certificate, failed to exhibit stock-cum-price board and hence the available stock was seized under Panchanama dated 15.8.2019 and the case under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 was also filed before the Joint Collector (Civil Supplies), Prakasam District–the 2^nd respondent, the stock for the month of September 2019 was distributed to the card-holders through Sri P.Narayana, Village Revenue Assistant, Anikalapalli Village–the 5^th respondent, and the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by suspending his authorization vide proceedings dated 01.10.2019 and that the petitioner has got remedy of statutory appeal before the Collector under Clause 24 of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 (for short, the Control Order) and without availing the said remedy, the petitioner has approached this Court.

¶11

I.A.No.4 of 2019 is filed by the 6^th respondent, who gave complaint against the order, seeking to implead himself. I.A.No.5 of 2019 is filed by the 6^th respondent seeking vacation of the interim order. I.A. No.3 of 2019 is filed by the Government seeking vacation of the interim order. I.A.Nos.5 and 3 are heard along with the writ petition.

¶12

¶13

As seen from the copy of the suspension order dated 01.10.2019, which is filed along with the counter, there are certain variations found with regard to the stock and the petitioner has diverted 152.185 Kgs of RG Dal into the black market. It is also stated that he has kept excess stock of 37 Kgs of PDS rice and 42.385 KGs of Ragi and contravened Clauses 21(c), 6(c), 12(h), 10(d), 10(f), 12(l) and 12(n) of the Control Order. The copy of the show cause notice, which is filed along with the counter, shows that the petitioner is directed to show cause as to why his authorization should not be cancelled. No reply affidavit is filed to the said counter affidavit filed by the respondents. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the copy of the suspension order and the show cause notice were not served on the petitioner. In view of the same, the respondents are directed to serve the suspension order and the show cause notice on the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As the petitioner has got alternative remedy of appeal challenging the suspension order, he is given the liberty to file an appeal before the competent Authority within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copies of the show cause notice and the suspension order. As there is an interim direction pending writ petition, the respondents are directed to supply essential commodities to the petitioner for a period of four weeks from the date of serving the copies of the suspension order and the show cause notice. However this order does not preclude the respondents from proceeding further with the enquiry.

¶14

¶15

With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶16

________________________________ KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J

¶17

December 29, 2020 YS

Munagala Venkateswarlu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munagala Venkateswarlu, 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

P.Venkatesulu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Chowdegari Chandra Sekhar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dagumati Santhamma Vs State of Ap

D.Ravishankar Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Korisipati Adam Vs G. Vijayalakshmi

Dundappa S Dodamani Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh