Allowed

Smt. Gangula Lakshmi Devi, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC27 Feb 2020WP/2380/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed an application by a fair price shop dealer who was denied supplies due to pending 6-A proceedings under the Essential Commodities Act without suspension of authorization. Relying on precedent, the court directed authorities to resume supply and expedite the enquiry.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to resume supply of essential commodities and conduct a regular enquiry with personal hearing expeditiously.

Smt. Gangula Lakshmi Devi, Vs The State of Andhra… — Consumer Protection | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO WRIT PETITION No.2380 of 2020

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents 2 and 6 in not deciding the 6-A of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short “ EC Act ”) case in respect of petitioner’s fair price shop No.1339009 of Chagalamarri Village & Mandal, Kurnool District in spite of representation dated 30.12.2019 given by the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary and against the A.P State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 (for short “ Control Order, 2018 ”) and for a consequential direction.

¶4

The petitioner’s case succinctly is that she is the permanent dealer of fair price shop No.1339009 of Chagalamarri Village and her authorization is valid till 18.04.2020. While so, on 03.12.2019 the 6^th respondent along with his staff inspected her fair price shop and found certain irregularities and even though the said variations are permissible, the 5^th respondent handed over the seized stock to one P.Venkata Rao, dealer of F.P Shop No.1339008 of Chagalamarri Village and booked a case under Section 6-A of EC Act. But so far the respondents 2 and 6 have not decided the 6-A case. Hence, this writ petition.

¶5

Heard Sri K.Muni Reddy Bala Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.

¶6

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently argue that without suspending or cancelling the authorization and without deciding 6A case, the authorities cannot stop supplying essential commodities to the dealer by putting the cardholders in hardship. He thus prayed to allow the writ petition.

¶8

Learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies on written instructions would submit that disciplinary action pursuant to Section 6-A of EC Act proceedings is awaited. He would fairly admit that as of now the petitioner’s authorization is neither suspended nor cancelled.

¶9

Admittedly, in this case authorization of the petitioner is neither suspended nor cancelled as on today. However, the respondents have stopped supplying essential commodities to the petitioner obviously on the ground that Section 6-A proceedings are pending. In W.P.No.16558 of 2019, learned single Judge of this Court placing reliance on the decision of Full Bench in Oleti Tirupathamma Vs. District Supply Officer (City) Visakhapatnam and others¹ , wherein it was observed that “such action disabling fair price shop dealer to run the shop without any order of suspension of cancellation is illegal and arbitrary and issued such directions ”, held that the action of respondents in withholding supply of commodities as illegal and arbitrary and accordingly directed the respondents therein to

¶10

1 2002 (1) ALD 577

¶11

¶12

continue the petitioner to hold fair price shop and allot essential commodities to him to distribute the same to the cardholders.

¶13

The above judgment applies with all its fours to the case on hand. In that view, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to supply essential commodities to the petitioner for distributing to the cardholders through his fair price shop on his scrupulously following the conditions for supply of essential commodities. Further, in view of the fact that the petitioner has submitted explanation to the proceedings under 6-A of EC Act, the 2^nd respondent shall conduct a regular enquiry and after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, pass an appropriate order in accordance with governing law and Rules expeditiously. No costs.

¶14

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶15

_________________________ U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J

¶16

27^th February, 2020 PVD

Smt. Gangula Lakshmi Devi, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Gangula Lakshmi Devi, 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

Kallam Peri Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kondeti Bangarayya, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B. Chengaiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kornu Govinda, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Koti Lingeswara Group Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Bogireddy Adeswarareddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh