Disposed

Majji Krishnaveni v. State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal

Andhra Pradesh HC20 Nov 2023WP/28966/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the termination of a Fair Price Shop dealer, the High Court directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to appoint a regular dealer within three months for Shop No.30, noting the current appointee was not regularly appointed despite having forfeited fines and restored authorization.

What did the court decide?

Directing the 4th respondent to take steps for the regular appointment of a dealer for Shop No.30 preferably within three months from the date of receipt of the order.

Majji Krishnaveni Vs State of Andhra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AWIARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 28966 OF 2015

¶6

Between:

¶7

Majji Krishnaveni, W/o. Nanadeswararao, MPTC Potnuru age 43 years, Potunuru Padmanabam Mandal,Visakhapatnam District.

¶8

Majji Kumari, W/o. Srinivasa Rao age 44 years,Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Potunuru Village, Padmanabam Mandal, Visakhapatnam^District.

¶9

Seera Surappadu, S/o. Suri, age 43 years Potunuru Village, Padmanabam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

¶10

Manyala Suribabu, S/o. Guru Naidu, age 32 years, Potunuru Village, PadmanabamMandal, VisakhapatnamDistrict.

¶11

Smt. Eegala Gowri, W/o. late Ramana age 34 years, Potunuru Village, Padmanabam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

¶12

Seera Appalanaidu, S/o. Paradesi age 30 years, Potunuru Village, Padmanabam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

¶13

Smt. Seera Gowri, W/o. Appala Naidu age 20 years, Potunuru Village, Padmanabam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

¶14

Smt. Seera Lakshmi, W/o. Satyam, age 30 years, Potunuru Village, Padmanabam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

¶15

Smt Seera Adithalli, W/o. late Appalaswamy, age 70 years, Potunuru Village, Padmanabam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

¶16

lO.Koyya Pentayya, S/o. late Bangarayya, age 60 years, Potunuru Village, Padmanabam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

¶17

Smt. Boora Peramma, D/o. late Gangulu, age 60 years, Potunuru Village, Padmanabam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

¶18

Smt. Seera Satyavathi, W/o. Gurunaidu, age 34 years, Potunuru Village, Padmanabam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

¶19

Seera Suri, S/o. late China Paradesi, age 60 years, Potunuru Village, Padmanabam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

¶20

Smt. Seera Appalasuramma, W/o. Suryanarayana age 33 years, Potunuru Village, Padmanabam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

¶21

Smt Guntaboyina Sanyasamma, W/o. late Sanyasappadu age 31 years, Potunuru Village, Padmanabam Mandal, Visakhapatnam^District.

¶22

16.Gulamajji Appalaraju, S/o. Suryanarayana age 34 years, Potunuru Village, Padmanabam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

¶23

Smt. Ayathi Suramma, W/o. late Bangarayya, age 35 years, Potunuru Village, Padmanabam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

¶24

Seera Ramana, S/o. Suri, age 40 years, Potunuru Village, Padmanabam

¶25

Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

¶26

IQ.Yerraju Satyanarayana, S/o. Appalaswamy, age 42 years, Potunuru Village, Padmanabam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

¶27

20.Raghumajji Bangarunaidu, S/o. late Suri,age 41 years, Potunuru Village, Padmanabam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

¶28

21.Karepu Gurunaidu, S/o. Bangarayya, age 48 years, Potunuru Village, Padmanabam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

¶29

Raghumajji Ramababu, S/o.Apparao, age 45 years, Potunuru Village, Padmanabam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

¶30

Karri Ramu, S/o. Rama Swami,age 52 years, Potunuru Village, Padmanabam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

¶31

Kilari Satyanarayana Rama Swami, age 40 years, Potunuru Village, Padmanabam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

¶32

Kilari Appalaraju, S/o. Apparao, age 38 years, Potunuru Village, Padmanabam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

¶33

26.Gulamajji Suryanarayan, S/o. Majjayya, age 65 years, Potunuru Village, Padmanabam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

¶34

27.Smt. Tonangi Bangarayya, W/o. late Suryanarayana age 59 years, Potunuru Village, Padmanabam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, (from 3 to 27 are white Ration Card Holders of F.P. Shop No.30 of Potnuru Village, Padmanabam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District)

¶35

...PETITIONER(S)

¶36

¶37

1. State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal, Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad, Civil Supplies Department, Hyderabad, Civil Supplies Department.

¶38

District Collector, Visakhapatnam 3. Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam 4. Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam

¶39

Avanapu Bangaru Naidu, Dealer FP Shop.No. 30 Of Potnuru Village, R/o. Ananthavaram Village, Padmanabham Mandal, Visakhapatnam^District ...RESPONDENTS

¶40

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly^one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring in action of the respondents 1 to 4 in prosecuting and terminating the 5th respondent from the dealership of FP shop No. 30 of Potnuru village in Padmanabham Mandal Visakhaptnam as arbitrary, illegal, un lawful and malicious and consequently direct them to prosecute the 5th respondent under the provisions of Essential Commodities and IPC and terminate him^forthwith from^the said dealership of Potnuru village and issue fresh notification for fresh appointment to the said dealership.

¶41

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2015fWPMP. NO: 37570 OF 2015)

¶42

Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of order of Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam in C.C.No.50/2014-CSRS dated 22.05.2015, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶43

Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI. P VEERRAJU

¶44

Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 4 : GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

¶45

Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : NONE APPEARED

¶46

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶47

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶48

WRIT PETITION No.28966 of 2015

¶49

ORDER:

¶50

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶51

“to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring in action of the respondents 1 to 4 in prosecuting and terminating the 5^^ respondent from the dealership of FP shop No. 30 of Potnuru villageⁱⁿ Padmanabham Mandal Visakhaptnam as arbitrary, illegal, unlawful and malicious and consequently direct them to prosecute the 5^'^ respondent under the provisions of Essential Commodities and IPC and terminate him forthwith from the said dealership of Potnuru village and issue fresh notification for fresh appointment to the said dealership and pass such other or orders. ”

¶52

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

¶53

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners herein being the card holders and sufferers for non-supply of PDS articles within time as per A.P.State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018

¶54

¶55

made so many allegations against the 5^^ respondent.^Inview of the same, the petitioners herein submitted number of representations to the respondents requesting them to initiate appropriate action against the 5^^^ respondent.^Even after receipt of the said representations, the respondents neither considered and passed orders nor initiated any action as required. Hence, the writ petition.

¶56

On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for the respondents placed on record the written instructions^dated nil. 11.2023 submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Bheemunipatnam. The relevant portion of the said instructions, reads as follows;

¶57

The said Bangaru Naidu was found to have played fraud in the FP Shop No.30 of Potnuru village by causing several irregularities and illegalities and consequently a case under 6-A(l) of EC Act, 1955 was booked against him, and on enquiry, he was found guilty of the charges in CC NO.50/2014-CSRS, dt.22-5-2015, by the Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam, whereby 25% of the stocks seized and ordered for confiscation and also the proceeds thereof to be remitted into the Government, i.e., 1456-Civil Supplies Head of Account.

¶58

¶59

¶60

Reasons why petition could not be considered:

¶61

On the irregularities committed by the dealer, FP Shop No.30, a case under 6-A(l) of EC Act, 1955 was booked against him. After due enquiry, the 6-A case is finalized in the Joint Collector's Court, Visakhapatnam with an order CC No.50/2014CSRS, dt.22-5-2015 confiscating 25% of the stock seized and ordered for confiscation and also the proceeds thereof to be remitted into the Government. After finalisation of the Disciplinary case, the Appointing Authority and the then Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam after giving opportunity to the Respondent, passed an order imposing fine for an amount of Rs.2000/be forfeited to Government from the trade deposit available vide Rc.No.5966/2013/CsDT, dt 14.10.2015 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam. Accordingly, the Delinquent dealer replenished the forfeited trade deposit to Government and as per Rules laid down under APSPDS (Control Order) 2008, the Authorisation of the FP Shop No.30 was restored to the dealer, Sri Avanapu Bangaru Naidu and the Respondent in this WP was permitted to lift the stocks and Distribute the Essential Commodities to the Card holders vide Proc. Rc.No.5966/2013/6, dt. 19.11.2015 of the Erstwhile Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam.

¶62

¶63

¶64

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the respondents, on perusal of the material placed before this Court, it is an admitted fact that after imposing penalty^for the mischief committed by the 5‘h respondent, the 5th respondent has been continuing as dealer of Fair Price Shop No. 30 of Potnuru village in Padmanabham Mandal, Visakhaptnam. It is also an admitted fact that the 5* respondent is the dealer, in-charge but not appointed on regular basis. Therefore, in view of the complaints, penalty and punishment imposed by the respondents, the continuation of 5th respondent as Fair Price Shop dealer is contrary to the A.P.State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018.

¶65

Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition can be disposed of, directing the 4th respondent herein to take steps for regular appointmentⁱⁿ respect of the Shop No.30 of Potnuru village in Padmanabham Mandal, Visakhaptnam, if the petitioner not appointed on regular basis. within a reasonable time,

¶66

¶67

¶68

preferably within a period of three (03) months from the date

¶69

of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶70

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed

¶71

of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶72

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending

¶73

in the writ petition shall stand closed.

¶74

//TRUE COPY//

¶75

Sd/- B.CHITTI JOSEPH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTIO^I OFFICER

¶76

/ /

¶77

To,

¶78

The Principal, Secretary, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Civil Supplies Department, Velagapudi, Amaravathi.

¶79

The District Collector, Visakhapatnam 3. The Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam

¶80

One CC to SRI. P VEERRAJU Advocate [OPUC]

¶81

Two CCs to GP for CIVIL SUPPLIES, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 7. Three CD Copies

Madhu

vqeet\

/ /

HIGH COURT

*l>ATED:20/11/2023 /

;*
.4

ORDER

WP.No.28966 of 2015

bP
'Tiv.
0 6 APR 202^ fTi !
^ Current Section ■

¶91

DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

Majji Krishnaveni v. State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Majji Krishnaveni v. State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal

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

Psr Constructions, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri. S.P. Raja Naik, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Thomandru Mallaiah Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

kacham vinoda Vs State of Ap,Prl.Scy,C.S.,Hyd,and 3

A. Prakasa Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bandi Narayanamma Vs the State of Ap