Disposed

K.Gangamma, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC20 Dec 2021WP/26620/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Writ Petition challenges the suspension of a petitioner's Fair Price Shop authorization due to stock variations. The Court directed the 3rd respondent to complete a final enquiry within 90 days, providing the petitioner a fair opportunity to be heard before cancelling the authorization.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 3rd respondent to complete the final enquiry and pass an appropriate reasoned order within ninety days.

K.Gangamma, Vs The State of Andhra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO

¶2

Writ Petition No. 26620 of 2021

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The grievance of the petitioner is that she was appointed as permanent Fair Price Shop Dealer of Shop No.38 of Ramasagaram Village, Beluguppa Mandal, Ananthapuram District on 14.09.1994. Since then she has been distributing the essential commodities to the cardholders without any complaint from any quarter. While things stood thus, the 4^th respondent inspected the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop on 23.07.2021 and seized the stock by conducting panchanama, though the variations in the stocks are within the permissible limit. The 4^th respondent submitted a report to the 3^rd respondent and the 3^rd respondent issued a show cause noticecum-suspension order dated 31.08.2021 alleging that there are some variations in the stocks. Thereafter, the respondent authorities have stopped supplying the essential commodities to the petitioner to supply the same to the cardholders. Assailing the said arbitrary action of the respondents, the Writ Petition came to be filed.

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Show cause notice-cum-suspension is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions clause 8 (4) of Andhra Pradesh State Targetted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 and the petitioner’s authorization is valid up to 31.03.2021 and submitted challan for renewal of the authorization and the same is still pending with the respondent authorities. The petitioner has not submitted any explanation so far.

¶6

¶7

Per contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, on instructions, submits that as it is found that the petitioner was involved in major irregularities in distribution of essential commodities and found variations in the stocks, show cause notice-cum-suspension was issued but, so far the petitioner has not submitted any explanation. Further, he states that the petitioner has not submitted proper application for renewal as per the procedure along with the challan and as on date the petitioner’s authorization is not subsisting.

¶8

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of the learned counsel and on perusal of the record, this Court in the interest of justice felt it appropriate to dispose of this Writ Petition directing the 3^rd respondent to complete the final enquiry as per the provisions of clause 8 (4) of the Andhra Pradesh State Targetted Public Distribution (Control) Order, 2018 by giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner as per the law laid down by this Court in the case of B. Manjula v. District Collector, Civil

¶9

Supplies, Kurnool and others¹ , Pidikiti Sailaja v. State of Andhra Pradesh.² , C. Durga Srinivasa Rao and others v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others³ , wherein this Court held that the respondents authorities have to conduct enquiry to prove the charges against the dealer by giving fair opportunity to the dealer before cancelling the authorization. Accordingly, the 3^rd respondent is directed to complete the final enquiry and pass appropriate reasoned order as per law within a period of 90 days

¶10