Disposed

Emani Sudha Rani, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC15 Dec 2020WP/6976/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposed of a Writ Petition filed by a Fair Price Shop Dealer challenging a suspension of her authorization. The court directed the respondent to complete the inquiry under the Essential Commodities Act within two months and to cooperate with the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent to complete enquiry within two months; petitioner to cooperate; Writ Petition disposed of without costs.

Emani Sudha Rani, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.6976 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 Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare the proceedings dated 15.02.2020, issued by respondent No.2, suspending the authorization of the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶6

Petitioner was appointed as fair price shop dealer of F.P.Shop No.0748002, Aluru Village, Ponnuru Mandal, Guntur District. While so, on 13.02.2020, the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, Ponnuru inspected the petitioner’s fair price shop and found certain irregularities and sent a report to respondent No.2 on 14.02.2020. Based on the said report, respondent No.2 issued show cause notice dated 15.02.2020 framing two charges.

¶7

The Charges read thus:

¶8

Charge No.1: That the F.P. shop dealer failed to distribute the stocks to the cardholders properly which lead to shortage of 1.20 qtls. of PDS rice and 0.09 Kgs. of sugar and excess of 0.85 Kgs. of RG Dall in stocks between the ground stocks and ePOS device. Thus, she violated Cl.12(3) of APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018.

¶9

Charge No.2: That F.P. Shop dealer indulged in clandestine business diverted the stocks which were found as shortage into black market and also kept the excess stocks in the shop without distributing to the cardholders with an intention to divert the same into black market for her personal gain. Thus, she violated Cl.12(3) of APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018.

¶10

¶11

On the very same day itself i.e.15.02.2020, respondent No.2 passed the impugned order suspending the authorization of the petitioner. Hence the Writ Petition.

¶12

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, pending proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, the impugned order was passed suspending the authorization of the petitioner based on the report of the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, Ponnuru. He further submits that the variations are within the permissible limits and no separate report has been sent by the Tahsildar recommending disciplinary action.

¶13

In so far as variations are concerned, whether they are within the permissible limits or not can be decided only through enquiry. With regard to the contention that there is no separate report by the Tahsildar recommending disciplinary action against the petitioner, the impugned order itself contains a recital that, as per the report submitted by the CSDT Ponnur, the dealer has committed irregularities in distribution of essential commodities. Hence, this contention also does not have legs to stand.

¶14

As the impugned order suspending the authorization of the petitioner is of February, 2020, respondent No.2 is directed to complete the enquiry, strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It

¶15

¶16

is also made clear that the petitioner shall cooperate with

¶17

enquiry and shall not take unnecessary adjournments.

¶18

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶19

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

¶20

________________________________ KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J

¶21

Date:15.12.2020 Usd

Emani Sudha Rani, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Emani Sudha Rani, 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

Smt.M. Himabindu, Vs the State of Ap

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

Smt. Gochipothula Naga Jyothi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

L Ramesh Vs the State of Ap

N.Sivarami Reddy Vs The State of Andhra pradesh