Disposed

Smt.M. Himabindu, v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Dec 2020WP/2604/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Reviewing the legality of a suspension order passes the burden on the shop/dealer authorisation to the Fair price shop dealer for variations in stock, suspension of the dealer's authorization without a prior show cause notice, the High Court directed the respondents to conduct a proper inquiry within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

In absence of a show cause notice requirement; the suspension remains provisional pending a mandatory inquiry to be completed within four weeks.

Smt.M. Himabindu, Vs the State of Ap — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.2604 of 2020

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

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

¶5

The action of respondent No.2, in suspending the authorization of the petitioner in respect of fair price shop No.0816013 situated in Kakanipalem Village, Addanki Mandal, Prakasam District, without issuing show cause notice, is questioned in the Writ Petition as being illegal and arbitrary.

¶6

The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as a fair price shop dealer of F.P.Shop No. 0816013 situated in Kakanipalem Village, Addanki Mandal, Prakasam District; on 05.11.2019, the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar inspected the fair price shop and found certain irregularities/variations; based on the report of the Deputy Tahsildar, Ongole-I, dated 07.11.2019, respondent No.2, without issuing any notice and without giving any opportunity to submit explanation, suspended her authorization; no show cause notice was issued prior to passing of the impugned order and there is no violation of the conditions of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 (for short ‘Control Order, 2018’). Hence the Writ Petition.

¶7

The main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that no show cause notice was issued before

¶8

¶9

suspending the authorization of the petitioner and that there are no variations in the stock.

¶10

Learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies submits that, as the impugned order is only suspension pending enquiry, issuance of prior notice is not necessary and that temporary dealer has already been appointed.

¶11

As seen from the impugned order dated 23.11.2019, the authorisation of the petitioner was suspended pending enquiry on the allegation that the petitioner was not distributing the essential commodities to the card holders properly. When the officers of the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Wing visited the subject fair price shop, the petitioner was not available and her husband viz. Sri Veera Dhanunjaya was distributing the commodities as nominee and, on verification, it was noticed that there were variations in PDS rice, sugar, and RG Dall. The explanation of the dealer at the time of inspection was that certain card holders have taken stock stating that they would impose their thumb impression later and some other cardholders imposed thumb impression in e-pos machine stating that they would take the stock later, but did not take stock with them. It is also alleged that he failed to exhibit the stock-cum-price list board in the shop premises and retained the commodities in his custody for diversion into black market, contrary to the provisions of the Control Order, 2018. It is specifically stated, in the impugned order, that the dealer has contravened sub-clause

¶12

¶13

(c) of Clause 21, sub-clause (f) of Clause 10, sub-clause (e) of Clause 12 and sub-clause (c) and Clause 6 and sub-clause (h) of Clause 12 of the Control Order, 2018. The other allegations, which are made against the petitioner, pertain to the factual aspects which cannot be decided in the Writ Petition. As the impugned order is only a suspension pending enquiry, no notice is required as contemplated under the Control Order, 2018.

¶14

In the facts and circumstances of the case, as disputed questions of facts are involved, respondents are directed to complete the enquiry, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. It is also made clear that the petitioner shall cooperate with the enquiry and shall not take unnecessary adjournments.

¶15

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶16

Miscellaneous Petition pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs.

¶17

________________________________ KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J

¶18

Date:14.12.2020 Usd

¶19

Smt.M. Himabindu, v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.M. Himabindu, v. the State of Ap

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

K.P. Srinivasulu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

T. Gayatri Devi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Singamreddy Raveendra Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s Kiran Services, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

Nedurumalli Subbarami Reddy Institute of Elementary Teacher Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s M S P Granites Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh