Disposed

Konanki Jayaramulu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC2 Dec 2021WP/13779/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that denying a fair price shop dealer supply of essential commodities during an inspection violates the provisions of the Control Order, rendering the action illegal and arbitrary. The court ordered the supply to continue while the inquiry is completed within 90 days.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioner to sell essential commodities pending completion of inquiry within 90 days.

Konanki Jayaramulu, Vs The State of Andhra… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 13799 of 2021

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as fair price shop dealer of Shop No.1353013 of Beldona Village, Chippagiri Mandal, Kurnool District in the year 1990. Since then he has been distributing the essential commodities to all the cardholders without any complaints. While things stood thus, the 2^nd respondent issued show cause notice on 28.06.2021 vide Rc.M.3841/2021 stating that the 3^rd respondent submitted report, dt.18.06.2021 stating that on inspection of the petitioner shop certain irregularities noticed and directed the petitioner to submit his explanation.

¶5

Sri Venkatesh Reddy learned counsel for the petitioner contend that the petitioner has been distributing the essential commodities to the card holders since three decades. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to submit explanation to the charges made there in.

¶6

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies while reiterating the averments of the counter submits that the contents of Panchanama drafted on 17.06.2021, reveals that petitioner shop was inspected on 17.06.2021 by the Tahsildar, Mandal Revenue Inspector along with Village Revenue Officer and found some irregularities in the distribution of essential commodities. Based on the inspection report of the Tahsildar, Chippagiri Rc.C 211/2021, Dt: 18.06.2021 and the panchanama, a show cause notice was issued by the appointing authority i.e. the Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoni by framing the following charges,

¶7

¶8

Charge No.1: that the inspection team has noticed that there is a variation of (-) 1 Bag of PMGKAY Rice, (-) 2 Bags of State Rice, (-) 78 packets of ½ Kg Sugar Packets and (-) 27 packets of 1 Kg Redgram dall variation on the ground balance. In this case the variation is beyond permissible limit of 1.5% as per 29(a) under APSTPDS (Control) Order 2018.

¶9

Charge No.2: At the time of inspection of FP Shop dealer has not produced valid authorization to the inspection team. This by violated Provisions of Clause 8(11)(c) under APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018.

¶10

On 06.07.2021 the Fair Price Shop Dealer submitted a MEMO before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoni through his representative stating that he is not able to attend for enquiry because he is suffering from COVID-19 he further submits that the Fair Price Shop dealer Authorization was lapsed on 31.03.1996 and till then he has not applied for renewal of Fair price shop Authorization but he stated that he applied for renewal on 24.03.2021 and same is not considered as per the clause 8(11)(c) under APSTPDS (control) order, 2018. However, it reveals that the petitioner has been supplying the essential commodities till the date of issue of show cause notice dated 28.06.2021. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of the learned counsel and on perusal of the material record, the court found that the petitioner has been distributing the essential commodities since 1996; based on the inspection conducted on 17.06.2021 the 2^nd respondent proceeded further to complete the enquiry and issued the show cause notice and the petitioner was denied supply of essential commodities to distribute the same to the cardholders without suspending or cancelling the authorizatioPn as per the provisions of Clause 8(4) of APSTPDS (control) order, 2018 which is illegal and arbitrary. So far no enquiry was initiated and the enquiry needs to be completed within a period of 90 days as

¶11

¶12

required under the provisions of clause 8(4) of Control Order and as per law laid down by this court. In the cases of B.Manjula v. District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool and others, Pidikiti Sailaja v. State of A.P and C. Durga Srinivas Rao and others vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others. Wherein it is held that the changes need to be produced by conducting enquiry against the petitioner by giving fair opportunity in the enquiry to defend his case. In the circumstances this court felt it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition giving liberty to the petitioner to submit explanation to the show cause notice within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On submission of the detailed explanation, by the petitioner the disciplinary authority shall consider the same and complete the final enquiry as contemplated under the provisions of clause 8(4) of Control Order, and as per the law laid down by this Court in the cases referred supra by conducting enquiry to prove the charges against the petitioner by adducing evidence and giving an opportunity to the petitioner to defend the petitioner’s case in the enquiry and pass orders as expeditiously as possible, within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner. Till the above exercise is completed, the petitioner shall be permitted to run the fair price shop by supplying the essential commodities.

¶13

Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of No costs.

¶14

Consequently miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶15

________________ M.GANGA RAO, J

¶16

02.12.2021 ssp

¶17

¶18

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO

¶19