Disposed

P.Venkatesulu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC28 Dec 2020WP/6409/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the cancellation of fair price shop authorization without prior report from Tahsildar. Court dismissed petition, noting petitioner had explanation opportunity and alternative remedy available, leaving final disposal to District Collector.

What did the court decide?

Writer petition dismissed; liberty granted to file appeal before District Collector within 15 days.

P.Venkatesulu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

KVL, J WP No.6409 of 2020

¶3

HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

¶4

Writ Petition No.6409 of 2020

¶5

ORDER:

¶6

This writ petition is filed ‘to declare the impugned proceedings dated 07.02.2020 of the 2^nd respondent cancelling the authorization of the petitioner’s fair price shop, without giving proper opportunity to him, as illegal and arbitrary’.

¶7

Case of the petitioner is that, the Mandal Revenue Inspector and the Village Revenue Officer inspected the subject shop on 19.10.2019 and alleged that there are certain irregularities in running of the subject shop and that there are certain variations in the stock; petitioner submitted his objections stating that the variation is marginal and is within the permissible limits, which is allowed under the APTPDS Control Order, 2018; a show cause notice dated 07.12.2019 was issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him and directed to appear before the 2^nd respondent on 13.12.2019; on 13.12.2019, petitioner appeared before the 2^nd respondent and submitted his explanation; after receiving the explanation from the petitioner, the 2^nd respondent issued a notice to the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, Guntakal and called for his report; thereafter, the 2^nd respondent passed the impugned proceedings dated 07.02.2020 cancelling the authorization of the petitioner under Clause 21(c) of APSTPDS Control Order, 2018, without supplying the report of the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar to the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions raised in the writ affidavit and also relied upon a judgment of this Court passed in WP No.2697 of 2020 dated 27.04.2020.

¶9

¶10

KVL, J WP No.6409 of 2020

¶11

As seen from the show cause notice dated 07.12.2019, the following

¶12

charges are framed against the petitioner.

¶13

“Charge No.1: That the FP shop dealer was failed to maintain scheduled commodities physically as per the balances shown in the electronic device. There is variation of 131 kgs of rice shortage and 0.05 kgs of sugar was found in the FP shop at the time of inspection, which is violation of clause 12(p)(3) of APSTPDS (Control) Order 2018.

¶14

Charge No.2: That the F.P. shop dealer was diverted 131 kgs of rice to black market and indulged in clandestine business for his pecuniary gains which is violation of clause 25(d) of APSTPDS (Control) Order 2018.

¶15

Charge No.3: That the F.P. shop dealer failed to renewed his authorization and failed to produce before Inspection Authority at the time of inspection as it seems he has renewed his authorization, which is violation of Clause 8-11C of APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018.

¶16

Charge No.4: That the F.P. shop dealer failed to issue receipts intentionally to the consumers, which is major violations by the dealer under clause 10 of APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018.”

¶17

Vide show cause notice dated 07.12.2019, petitioner was asked to appear before the Joint Collector on 13.12.2019. According to the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, a written explanation has been given by the petitioner on 13.12.2019 stating that there are no variations in the stock but the officials obtained signatures on blank papers and shown variation and that the petitioner may be continued as fair price shop dealer. As seen from the explanation which is extracted, no explanation whatsoever has been given by the dealer with regard to specific charges framed against him. Basing on the said explanation, impugned order dated 07.02.2020 has been passed cancelling the authorization of the petitioner.

¶18

As seen from the said impugned order, it is observed that petitioner has stated that during enquiry, the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, Guntakal obtained signature of the petitioner on blank paper and later booked a case against him, even though there is no variation in the stock. It is also observed in the impugned order that if the physical stocks are tallied with the e-pos balances, how the dealer permitted the inspection

¶19

¶20

KVL, J WP No.6409 of 2020

¶21

authorities to seize and shift the physical stocks and that the dealer did not explain anything about non issuance of printed receipts to cardholders.

¶22

Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment in WP No.18392 of 2019 dated 31.12.2019. That is a case of suspension of dealership. There the plea that was taken was that the dealership was suspended without any separate report from the Tahsildar recommending disciplinary proceedings in accordance with Clause 20(i) of the A.P. State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2019 and memo of the government. Government took a stand that a separate report was submitted for taking disciplinary proceedings. But as the copy of the same was not before the court, except stating in the written instructions, it was disbelieved and the writ petition was allowed. The ratio laid down in the said judgment does not apply to the facts of the present case.

¶23

The second judgment that is relied upon by the petitioner is i.e., WP No.2697 of 2020 dated 27.04.2020. That is a case of cancellation of dealership, without giving any reasons and without taking into consideration of the explanation filed by the dealer. It is categorically stated in the said order that opportunity has to be given to both the parties to adduce evidence “if they propose” and that the authority should give cogent reasons for the findings. In the said judgment, it was observed as follows:

¶24

“Since no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner herein to adduce evidence and no personal hearing or hearing through counsel was done after receiving the explanation and no cogent reasons were mentioned for not taking into consideration the explanation, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.”

¶25

In the present case, it is not the case of the petitioner that no opportunity was afforded to him to adduce evidence and no personal hearing or hearing through counsel was given. Petitioner never sought to adduce evidence or personal hearing or hearing through the Advocate.

¶26

¶27

KVL, J WP No.6409 of 2020

¶28

Reasons are given in the impugned order unlike the case relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner. Hence, the said judgment does not apply to the facts of the present case. Though learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the variations are marginal, no plea has been taken stating that variations are within the permissible limits, which means that variations are not within permissible limits. Petitioner was given a show cause notice and asked to explain. After receipt of the explanation from the petitioner, explanation was called for from the Deputy Tahsildar. Except stating that signatures were obtained on blank paper, no evidence has been let in to that effect. In the reference to the impugned order, a reference is there to the representation of the petitioner dated 21.11.2019 and explanation dated 13.12.2019. Copies of the same are not filed along with this writ petition. Basing on the explanation of the dealer only an explanation of the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar was called for and not a report. As show cause notice is already issued and explanation is called for, principles of natural justice are not violated. Even though, petitioner has got an alternative remedy of appeal before the District Collector against the impugned orders raising all these contentions, he did not avail the alternative remedy.

¶29

In the facts and circumstances of the case, without going into the merits of the same, as the petitioner has got alternative remedy of appeal before the District Collector, he is given liberty to file an appeal before the District Collector within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, by raising all the grounds. On filing of such appeal by the petitioner within the above stipulated period, the District Collector is directed to deal with the same and pass appropriate orders thereon strictly in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.

¶30

¶31

KVL, J WP No.6409 of 2020

¶32

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

¶33

___________________________ KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J

¶34

Date: 28.12.2020 BSS

¶35

¶36

KVL, J WP No.6409 of 2020

¶37

HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

¶38

Writ Petition No.6409 of 2020

¶39

¶40

Date: 28.12.2020

¶41

BSS

P.Venkatesulu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Venkatesulu 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

M/S Nspr Kmc (Jv) Vs Union of India

S. Shafi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Katikam Venkatesh, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Chowdegari Chandra Sekhar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dagumati Santhamma Vs State of Ap

KallaButchiabbai, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh