Disposed

Shaik Soudagar Afrin v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Nov 2021WP/12318/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the suspension of a Fair Price Shop Dealer's authorization. The Court directed the Competent Authority to conclude the pending enquiry within four months and continued the supply of essential commodities to the shop pending the enquiry's final outcome.

What did the court decide?

Competent Authority directed to complete enquiry within 4 months; supply of essential commodities to petitioner's shop continued pending enquiry.

Shaik Soudagar Afrin Vs The State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI Writ Petition No.12318 of 2020

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This writ petition is filed to declare the proceedings dated 01.06.2020 on the file of the Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Guntur, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶4

The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as Fair Price Shop Dealer for shop No.0792056 of Vinukonda on 20.01.2018; the police personal came to the subject shop during midnight of 22.05.2020 and brought a vehicle and some rice bags to her shop to foist a false case against the petitioner; the petitioner came to know that the said rice bags were returned to M.L.S.Point and the vehicle was handedover to Station House Officer, Vinukonda Police Station; the CSDT, Vinukonda and the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Vinukonda along with Village Revenue Officers inspected the shop on 23.05.2020 and prepared a false mediatornama and seized the available stocks without accounting the stock with reference to the EPOS Machine balances; there is no variation in the stock even as per the mediatornama and a show-cause notice was issued on 01.06.2020 and the following charg was framed.

¶5

¶6

“ Charge No.1 : That the Dealer indulged in clandestine business and diverted the stocks which were found as variation into black market for his personal gain. Thus, she violated C1, 21(c) of APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018.”

¶7

On the same day, the authorization of the petitioner was suspended on the ground that the father of the petitioner found loading the rice into vehicle for diverting it into black market; the said allegation is false and framed only for the purpose of suspending the authorization. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶8

When the matter came up admission on 31.07.2020, an interim direction was passed suspending the suspension order dated 01.06.2020.

¶9

Vacate stay petition is filed along with counter affidavit by the 2^nd respondent stating inter alia that FIR No.127 of 2020 was registered against the petitioner under Sections 429, 34 IPC and 7 of Essential Commodities Act; the authorization of the petitioner was not suspended merely basing on the 6A case report but on the special report submitted by the C.S.Deputy Tahsildar dated 23.05.2020; the father of the petitioner was found involved in diverting the essential commodities meant for cardholders on 22.05.2020 by way of transporting through Mini Lorry and the Village Revenue Officer has also taken photographs of loading of the PDS

¶10

¶11

rice into the Mini Lorry and the cardholders have also stated that the petitioner used to distribute PDS rice at the rate of Rs.10/- per kg.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no variation in the stock and hence the authorization of the petitioner ought not have been suspended.

¶13

On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for respondents submits that the petitioner is purchasing rice from the cardholders and diverting the same into the black market and hence there will not be any variation in the stock position. The issue as to whether diverting the stocks into the black market is true or not can only be decided in an enquiry that was initiated against the petitioner.

¶14

In view of the facts and circumstances, the Competent Authority is directed to complete the enquiry initiated against the petitioner as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, as there is an interim order pending writ petition, respondents are directed to continue to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop pending disposal of the enquiry. It is needless to mention

¶15

¶16

that the petitioner has to cooperate with the enquiry and shall not need any adjudication in the matter.

¶17

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶18

The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶19

_________________________________ KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J

Date : 03.11.2021

VSL

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.12318 OF 2020

¶25

Date: 03.11.2021

¶26

VSL

¶27

Shaik Soudagar Afrin v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Soudagar Afrin 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

Fair Price Shops Dealers Welfare Association, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Padala Appalakonda Vs State of Ap,Prl.Scy,C.S.,Hyd,and 3

Mogili Yedukondalu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Revuru Krishnaiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Duddu Pothu Raju, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rcp: by its Principal

M/s.Nagaraja Traders Vs State of Andhra Pradesh