Allowed

Mamidi Surya Kumari, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Dec 2020WP/20527/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the suspension of a fair price shop dealer's authorization. It held that under the AP Control Order, 2018, no prior show cause notice is required for suspension pending enquiry. While a separate disciplinary report is necessary, it was submitted after the fact, validating the suspension.

What did the court decide?

The respondents were directed to complete the enquiry against the petitioner within four weeks.

Mamidi Surya Kumari, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI WRIT PETITION No.20527 of 2020

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. At their request, the Writ Petition is being disposed of.

¶4

The Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare the proceedings dated 22.10.2020, issued by respondent No.3, suspending the authorization of the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶5

Petitioner was appointed as fair price shop dealer of F.P.Shop No.0281070, K.L.Puram Area, Vizianagaram, in the year 1996; on 06.10.2020, police seized Bolero Van bearing registration No.AP 31 ZJ T/R 4392 parked at the subject shop, along with rice stock in 18 plastic bags, weighing 50 Kgs. each, under a cover of occurrence report and filed a report dated 07.10.2020 before respondent No.4 for taking further action; on 08.10.2020, respondent No.5 inspected the subject fair price shop and alleged that there are variations in stock when compared with Epos and ground balance; based on the report submitted by respondent No.5, respondent No.3 passed the impugned order dated 22.10.2020 suspending her authorization temporarily, pending finalization of enquiry. Contending that the impugned order of suspension was not preceded by a show cause notice, the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶6

¶7

The contention, of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that as there is no separate report before the disciplinary authority recommending disciplinary action under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 (for short ‘Control Order, 2018’), the authorization of the petitioner ought not to have been suspended and that a copy of the same has not been served on the petitioner. In support of his contentions, he relied on the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.500 of 2020 dated 08.01.2020

¶8

Clause 20 (i) of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 reads as under:

¶9

“The inspecting authorities as and when found contravention of the provisions of this Order shall submit necessary inspection reports for initiation of disciplinary action under this Order. In case of seizure of scheduled commodities, for any violation or contravention of the provisions of this Order, a report of seizure shall be submitted to the Collector/Joint Collectors, as the case may be, for initiating the action under Section 6-A(1) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Simultaneously, a separate report shall be filed for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against errant dealer under the provisions of this Order and for violating the conditions of authorization.”

¶10

As seen from the aforesaid clause, the inspecting authorities as and when find any contravention of the provisions of the Control Order, 2018, they should submit necessary inspection reports for initiation of disciplinary action. In case of seizure of scheduled commodities, for any

¶11

¶12

violation or contravention of the provisions of the Control Order, 2018, a report of seizure shall be submitted to the Collector/Joint Collectors for initiating the action under Section 6-A(1) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The said clause clearly contemplates that a separate report has to be filed for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the dealer under the provisions of the Control Order, 2018.

¶13

This Court, in W.P.No.500 of 2020 dated 08.01.2020, held that, in the absence of any separate report for initiation of disciplinary action against the dealer, the order of suspension cannot be sustained in view of Clause 20(i) of the Control Order, 2018. As seen from the facts of the present case, the impugned order, suspending the authorization of the petitioner, categorically states that respondent No.5 requested to initiate disciplinary action against the dealer for committing irregularities in maintenance of the fair price shop.

¶14

Learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, on written instructions, would submit that, as the petitioner has diverted the PDS rice, a separate report has been sent for taking disciplinary action against the dealer on 09.10.2020.

¶15

As seen from the Control Order, 2018, a separate report is contemplated recommending initiation of disciplinary proceedings and it is not necessary that such a report has to be served on the petitioner. A separate report has since been sent for initiation of disciplinary action, the judgment, relied

¶16

¶17

on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, will not come to the aid of the petitioner.

¶18

No show cause notice is contemplated prior to the suspension of authorisation under the Control Order of 2018, in cases where authorisation is suspended pending enquiry and not as a measure of punishment.

¶19

In the circumstances, the respondents are directed to complete the enquiry, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶20

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶21

________________________________ KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J

¶22

Date: 17.12.2020 Note: CC one week. (BO) USD

Mamidi Surya Kumari, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mamidi Surya Kumari, v. 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

M/S Sree Srinivasa Stone Crusher Vs the State of Ap

M/s. Sree Srinivasa Stone Crusher Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Putta Jagadeesh Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M.Satyavathi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M Satyavathi Vs the State of Ap

Ganesh Constructions Vs State of Andhra Pradesh