Disposed

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

Andhra Pradesh HC15 Dec 2020WP/746/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order is a Writ Petition where the petitioner challenged the suspension of her Fair Price Shop authorization based on stock shortage allegations. The Court held that the suspension is not merely due to pendency under Section 6-A due to a disciplinary recommendation and directed the respondent to complete the enquiry within two months before disposing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondent No.2 to complete enquiry within two months of receiving the order's copy; Writ Petition disposed of without costs.

Smt. Gochipothula Naga Jyothi, Vs The… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI WRIT PETITION No.746 of 2020

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

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.

¶4

The Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare the proceedings dated 20.11.2019, issued by respondent No.2, suspending the authorization of the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶5

Petitioner was appointed as fair price shop dealer of F.P.Shop No.0723001, Thondapi Village, Muppala Mandal, Guntur District. On 11.11.2019, the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar I/C, Sattenapalli inspected the petitioner’s fair price shop and found certain irregularities. Respondent No.2 issued show cause notice dated 20.11.2019 framing two charges. The charges read thus:

¶6

Charge No.1: That the F.P. shop dealer failed to distribute the stocks to the cardholders properly which lead to 16.72 qtls. shortage in rice and 0.70 Kgs. shortage in Sugar, 0.79 Kgs. shortage in RG Dall stocks with reference to ground stocks and epos device. Thus, she violated Cl.12(3) of APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018.

¶7

Charge No.2: That the F.P.Shop dealer indulged in clandestine business diverted the stocks which were found as variation into black market for her personal gain. Thus she violated Cl.21(c) of APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018.

¶8

¶9

On the very same day itself, respondent No.2 passed the impugned order dated 20.11.2019 suspending the authorization of the petitioner. Her grievance is that, despite her explanation dated 02.12.2019, that there is no variation in the stock, the suspension order has not been revoked. Hence the Writ Petition.

¶10

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the authorization cannot be suspended or cancelled based on the report under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’), which is contrary to the memo issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh dated 28.09.2015; and respondent No.3-Tahsildar though did not file a separate report recommending disciplinary action against the petitioner.

¶11

As seen from the impugned order suspending the authorization of the petitioner, it is categorically stated that the Tahsildar also recommended, vide reference mentioned in the impugned order, for initiation of disciplinary action against her. As there is a specific recommendation by the Tahsildar to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner, it cannot be said that her authorization was suspended merely because of the pendency of the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act. Even though, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no variation in the stock, it is a

¶12

¶13

question of fact, which cannot be decided in the Writ Petition.

¶14

Without going into the merits of the case, as the suspension is of November, 2019, respondent No.2 is directed to complete the enquiry, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶15

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶16

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

¶17

________________________________ KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J

¶18

Date:15.12.2020 Usd

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Gochipothula Naga Jyothi, 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

Emani Sudha Rani, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

L Ramesh Vs the State of Ap

N.Sivarami Reddy Vs The State of Andhra pradesh