Disposed

Smt. Bikki Srilatha v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC18 Feb 2022WP/12593/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the suspension of the petitioner's authorization as a Fair Price Shop dealer. The Court held that the existence of stock variations requires a proper enquiry and cannot be decided via writ jurisdiction. The pending petitions were disposed of without costs while an interim order remains in force.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed; respondents directed to complete enquiry expeditiously; supply of essential commodities to petitioner continued pending enquiry.

Smt. Bikki Srilatha Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Consumer Protection | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

¶2

Writ Petition No.12593 of 2020

¶3

Order:

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed questioning the proceedings dated 29.05.2020 of the Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Guntur, suspending the authorization of the petitioner as Fair Price Shop dealer as arbitrary and illegal.

¶5

The case of the petitioner is that in the year 2007 she was appointed as permanent Fair Price Shop dealer for Shop No.074205A of Irlapadu village; the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, Chilakaluripet inspected the subject shop on 06.01.2020, but they did not find any irregularities, however they submitted a false report against the petitioner even though there were no variations in the stocks; a false panchanama was prepared showing variations and basing on the said report, the Joint Collector, Guntur suspended the authorization of the petitioner on 10.01.2020; questioning the same, petitioner filed WP No.1200 of 2020 and the said Writ Petition was allowed on 23.01.2020 setting aside the order of suspension; thereafter, petitioner was continued as Fair Price Shop dealer; again on 20.05.2020, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Savalyapuram Police Station came to Irlapadu village and registered a case against the petitioner under Section 420 IPC and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act alleging that she is diverting the PDS rice into black market; later the Deputy Tahsildar, Civil Supplies, Mandal Revenue Inspector and the VRO inspected the subject shop on 23.05.2020 and seized the stocks available in the shop even though there are no irregularities; the mediators report dated 23.05.2020 does not show any

¶6

¶7

irregularities; based on the same, the impugned order dated 29.05.2020 is passed suspending the authorization of the petitioner; the mediatornama prepared by the police on 21.05.2020 also did not contain any allegation of variation in the stock and even the mediatornama prepared on 23.05.2020 by the Deputy Tahsildar does not show any variations in the stock; the report, based on which the impugned order is passed, is not supplied to the petitioner and no enquiry was conducted whatsoever before suspending the authorization of the petitioner. Hence, the Writ Petition.

¶8

As seen from the impugned order dated 29.05.2020, it is alleged that there is prima facie evidence that the petitioner has contravened the provisions of the AP TPDS Contlrol Order, 2018 and hence the authorization is temporarily suspended pending enquiry. It is also alleged in the impugned order that the petitioner tried to divert the undistributed 5.00 Qtls of PDS rice in 10 bags available in her shop into black market.

¶9

When the Writ Petition came up for admission on 29.07.2020, this Court passed an interim order suspending the impugned proceedings.

¶10

The issue as to whether there is any variation in the stock and whether the petitioner tried to divert the stock into black market is a matter of enquiry and the same cannot be decided in the Writ Petition.

¶11

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents are directed to complete the enquiry as expeditiously as possible. As there is already an interim order suspending the suspension proceedings pending the Writ Petition, the respondents are directed to continue to supply essential commodities to the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop pending enquiry.

¶12

¶13

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no

¶14

order as to costs.

¶15

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in

¶16

this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶17

_____________________________ KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J

¶18

Date:18.02.2022 Nsr

¶19

¶20

HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

¶21

Writ Petition No.12593 of 2020

¶22

Date:18.02.2022

¶23

Nsr

Smt. Bikki Srilatha v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Bikki Srilatha 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bonitha Patro Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B.Sreenivasula Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Chakka Uma Kameswari Devi, Vs Chakka Veera Venkata Satya Jala Siva

N Tulasi Vs N Ramesh

A. Jayarami Reddy, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Jannavada Siddaiah, Prakasam Dist Vs Secy, Consumer Affairs, Hyd and Anr.