Disposed

G. Dastagiramma, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Dec 2021WP/14601/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ relief against suspension from Fair Price Shop dealer post-inspection discrepancy. Court remitted matter for final enquiry within 90 days and directed continuation of dealer status pending findings, citing relevant precedents.

What did the court decide?

Directs Revenue Divisional Officer to complete final enquiry within 90 days and continue petitioner as Fair Price Shop dealer pending completion.

G. Dastagiramma, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.14601 of 2019

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the respondents.

¶5

The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as a Fair Price Shop dealer of Fair Price Shop No.1326038 of Mulugundam Village, in the year 2015. Since then she has been distributing the essential commodities to the card holders without any complaint. While things stood thus, a show-cause-notice dated 07.09.2019, and simultaneously, suspension order suspending the petitioner’s authorization was served on the petitioner. In the suspension order it is stated that the MRI, Aspari and Village Revenue Officer, Mulugundam Village inspected the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop on 07.08.2019, and found that the dealer has committed certain irregularities and noticed variations of PDS rice 1.15 quintals, Sugar 0.54 kgs and Redgram dal 0.69 kgs. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 07.08.2019 the Mandal Revenue Inspector and the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar inspected Fair Price Shop and no variations were found and no irregularities were noticed. Copy of the inspection proforma was given to the petitioner. No panchanama was prepared in the shop however along with the counter and they filed panchanama dated 07.08.2019, stating that at the time of inspection there is excess of 1.15 quintals of rice, Sugar 0.54 kgs and Redgram dal 0.69 kgs the same is prepared behind the back of the petitioner.

¶7

The 5^th respondent/ Tahsildar, Aspari Mandal filed counter denying the averments of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition.

¶8

¶9

Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that as per the instructions of the Tahsildar, from the Mandal Revenue and Village Revenue Officer, Mulugundam Village, petitioner’s Fair Price Shop was inspected on 07.08.2019, and the panchanama is prepared and Tahsildar submitted the report dated 06.09.2019, the show cause notice and suspension order pending enquiry were issued to the petitioner, for which the petitioner has submitted explanation. However, so far final enquiry was not completed.

¶10

Pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on 25.09.2019, the petitioner’s authorization was restored and she is continuing as Fair Price Shop dealer and distributing the essential commodities to card holders, petitioner’s authorization was suspended pending enquiry. Veracity of the panchanama could not be decided in proceedings before this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India. As the disputed questions of fact do arise for consideration in deciding the lis, it is the subject matter of enquiry before the Revenue Divisional Officer and conduct enquiry as per the provisions of the APSTPDS (control) order, 2018 and take appropriate action.

¶11

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of the learned counsel and on perusal of the record, this Court felt it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition, directing the 4^th respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool District to conduct final enquiry as per the provisions of Clause 8(4) of APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018, and law laid down by this Court in the case of B. Manjula V. District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool and others¹ , Pidikiti Sailaja V. State of Andhra Pradesh² and C. Durga Srinivas Rao and others Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others³ , by conducting enquiry to prove the charges against the petitioner by adducing evidence and give an opportunity to the petitioner to cross examine the witness and to defend the petitioner’s case in

¶12

1 2015(4) ALT 572

¶13

2 2015(2) ALT 667

¶14

3 2015(6) ALD 359

¶15

¶16

the enquiry and pass final orders as expeditiously as possible, within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner. Till such time, the respondents are directed to continue the petitioner as the fair price shop dealer for shop No. 1326038 of Mulugundam Village, and supply essential commodities to her to distribute the same to the cardholders.

¶17

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2^nd respondent to complete the enquiry as expeditiously, as possible within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and communicate the same to the petitioner. Till completion of the said exercise the petitioner shall be continued as a Fair Price Shop dealer and supply the essential commodities to the petitioner to distribute the same to the card holders.

¶18

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶19

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶20

_____________________ JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO

¶21

PGT

¶22

¶23

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO

¶24