Allowed

Kovvuri Shiva Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC15 Feb 2022WP/3519/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the suspension of essential commodity supplies to his Fair Price Shop. The Court held that if the authorization is not suspended or cancelled, supply must be restored, though disciplinary proceedings may continue. The Writ Petition was disposed of in the petitioner's favor.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to supply essential commodities to the petitioner's Fair Price Shop.

Kovvuri Shiva Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Consumer Protection | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI WRIT PETITION No.3519 of 2022

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader.

¶4

The Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in not supplying the commodities to the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop bearing No.1227044 of Dugumarri Village, Narpala Mandal, Ananthapuramu District, as arbitrary and illegal. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a dealer of the subject shop and authorization is valid even as on today. The subject shop was inspected on 02.05.2020 and commodities were seized, alleging that there is variation between ground stock and the stock as per statement drawn from the E-Pass machine. Again the subject shop was inspected on 28.01.2022 and 60 Kgs., of rice and EPOs machine was seized. The variations in the Panchanama are within the permissible limits and without suspending or cancelling the authorization of the subject shop, the respondents have stopped the supply of essential commodities. Hence, the Writ Petition.

¶5

Learned Assistant Government Pleader Sri Raju, appearing for respondents submits that subsequent to the inspection, a report has been sent recommending disciplinary action against the petitioner.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Judgment of this Court in Oleti Tirupathamma Vs., District Supply Officer (City), Visakhapatnam¹ and submits that as per the Judgment, the authorities cannot stop the supply of stock to the Fair Price Shop without suspending or cancelling the authorization. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even though the subject shop was inspected in the year 2020, no action has been taken and that, pursuant to the Panchanama dated 28.01.2022, the respondents have stopped the supply of the stock.

¶7

In view of the facts and circumstances, if the authorization of the petitioner is neither suspended nor cancelled, the respondents are directed to supply essential commodities to the subject shop. It is made clear that this order does not prevent the respondents from initiating or completing the disciplinary proceedings, which are initiated against the petitioner.

¶8