Disposed

Chowdegari Chandra Sekhar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC28 Dec 2020WP/6444/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the cancellation of a fair price shop authorization. The court observed the absence of a detailed enquiry and opportunity for examination of complainants but declined to decide the matter on merits, granting liberty to file an appeal before the District Collector.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file an appeal before the District Collector within two weeks on all grounds.

Chowdegari Chandra Sekhar Vs The State of… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

KVL, J WP No.6444 of 2020

¶3

HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

¶4

Writ Petition No.6444 of 2020

¶5

ORDER:

¶6

This writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings dated 11.02.2020 of the 2^nd respondent in 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 18.10.2019 and alleged that there are certain variations; the 2^nd respondent issued a show cause notice dated 30.12.2019 and directed the petitioner to appear before him on 10.01.2020; on 10.01.2020, petitioner appeared before the 2^nd respondent and submitted his explanation stating that there is no variation in the stock at all, but in spite of the same, impugned proceedings dated 11.02.2020 were passed cancelling the authorization of the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no variation at all in the stock; the details of the cardholders, who gave complaint against the petitioner, are not mentioned in the show cause notice; petitioner was not given any opportunity and that without giving any proper reasons, the authorization of the petitioner was cancelled.

¶9

As seen from the show cause notice, the following charges are framed against the petitioner.

¶10

“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 86 kgs of rice shortage was found in the FP shop at the time of inspection, which is violation of clause 12(p)(3) of APSTPDS (Control) Order 2018.

¶11

Charge No.2: That the F.P. shop dealer was diverted 86 kgs of rice to black market and indulged in clandestine business for his

¶12

¶13

KVL, J WP No.6444 of 2020

¶14

pecuniary gains which is violation of clause 25(d) of APSTPDS (Control) order 2018.”

¶15

Admittedly, petitioner did not give any explanation to the show cause notice dated 30.12.2019 prior to his appearance before the Joint Collector. However, on the date of enquiry, he submitted his explanation dated 10.01.2020. Copy of the explanation which is filed along with the writ petition reads as follows:

¶16

“C.S.D.T. Madam has come to our village for checking my shop. Stocks of commodities in my F.P. shop are all correct. The stocks in the E-Pass machine and the stocks in my shop have no variation, but due to political pressure, injustice has done to me. For the last 20 years, I have been distributing the commodities to the people, without any remark. Hence, I request you to kindly continue me as F.P. shop dealer.”

¶17

The said explanation is extracted in the impugned order. As seen from the same, he stated that there are no variations at all and that due to political reasons, authorization of the petitioner was sought to be cancelled.

¶18

As seen from the explanation of the petitioner, he did not ask for detailed enquiry in the matter and he did not seek to adduce evidence to disprove his case. As seen from the impugned order, card holders were not enquired separately. The order shows that based on the complaint of card holders, inspection was done and that the card holders confirmed the same at the time of inspection itself. Even though the petitioner was present at the time of inspection when the card holders stated against him, he did not seek to examine them. It is not demonstrated before this court as to how the variation of 1.59% in PDS rice i.e., 86 Kgs is within the permissible limit. Basing on the explanation given by the dealer, the impugned order has been passed cancelling the authorization. Even though, petitioner has got

¶19

¶20

KVL, J WP No.6444 of 2020

¶21

alternative remedy of appeal before the District Collector against the impugned orders, he has not availed the same.

¶22

In the facts and circumstances of the case, without going into the merits of the same, as the petitioner has got an alternative remedy of appeal before the District Collector, he is given liberty to file an appeal before the District Collector within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, by raising all the grounds and if such an appeal is filed within the time stipulated above, the appropriate authority 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.

¶23

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

¶24

___________________________ KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J

¶25

Date: 28.12.2020 BSS

¶26

¶27

KVL, J WP No.6444 of 2020

¶28

HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

¶29

Writ Petition No.6444 of 2020

¶30

¶31

Date: 28.12.2020

¶32

BSS

Chowdegari Chandra Sekhar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chowdegari Chandra Sekhar 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

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

P.Venkatesulu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dagumati Santhamma Vs State of Ap

KallaButchiabbai, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh