Allowed

Sri Gurram Venugopal v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC10 Nov 2024WP/16796/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Fair price shop dealer challenged suspension of his authorization based on a newspaper report that he took part in political campaigning. The court held clause 12(s) required hampering of the public distribution system and breach of natural justice, set aside the suspension, and directed his continuation as dealer.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings Rc.No.475/2024 dated 04.04.2024 set aside; petitioner to be continued as fair price shop dealer; liberty to conduct enquiry.

Sri Gurram Venugopal Vs The State of Andhra… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

APHC010333402024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

[3311]

¶4

MONDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY-FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 16796/2024

Between:

Sri Gurram Venugopal

...PETITIONER

AND

The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶13

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶15

1.K.Srinivas

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶17

1.GP for Civil Supplies

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶19

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶20

“...to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction declaring the action of the 2^nd respondent in suspending the authorization of the petitioner basing on the adverse news published in Sakshi newspaper on 04.04.2024 by suspending the authorization of the petitioner vide Rc.No.475/2024 dated on 04.04.2024 is illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice consequently set aside the proceedings vide Rc.No.475/2024 dated on 04.04.2024...”

¶21

¶22

BSB, J W.P.No.16796 of 2024

¶23

2. The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows:

¶24

The petitioner had been functioning as a fair price shop dealer bearing shop No.1205010 of Ameenpalli Village, Guntakal Mandal, Anantapuramu District, from the date of appointment without any remarks. The Deputy Tahasildar, Civil Supplies, Guntakal Mandal, basing on the report published in the Sakshi daily newspaper that the petitioner had participated in a political campaign, conducted an inquiry, and submitted a report to the 3^rd respondent. Subsequently, 3^rd respondent submitted a report to the 2^nd respondent on 04.04.2024. Basing on the same, the 2^nd respondent, without issuing any show cause notice, issued the proceedings vide Rc.No.475/2024 on 04.04.2024, suspending the authorization of the petitioner by referring G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 11.08.2018. But, G.O.Ms.No.15 of 2018 was replaced by G.O.Ms.No.02 dated 22.01.2021, and therefore, the suspension order is not passed as per law.

¶25

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had never participated in the political campaign and that even if the allegation is true, there is no violation of any rule of law so as to call for disciplinary action. He further submitted that the petitioner had been still allowed to supply the commodities. As the impugned order was passed in April, 2024, he submitted that continuation of the order of suspension for period more than 90 days without initiation and conclusion of the disciplinary action is illegal and liable to be set aside.

¶26

4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader representing the respondents placed on record the written instructions of the 3^rd respondent vide Rc.C/475/2024, dated 04.04.2024, where in it is submitted that basing on the news item published and after receiving report from the Tahsildar, Guntakal and perusing the report of the Tahsildar, Guntakal the Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntakal has suspended the F.P.Shop dealership held by the petitioner F.P.Shop No.1205010 of Ameenapalli Village, Guntakal Mandal as per the proceedings Rc.No.475/2024, dated 04.04.2024.

¶27

¶28

BSB, J W.P.No.16796 of 2024

¶29

5. The clause 12 (s) of the Control Order, 2018 which is the relevant provision dealing with similar condition reads as follows:

¶30

“No fair price shop dealer shall take part in any political activity directly or indirectly in any General/Municipal/Panchayat Raj elections, hampering the public distribution system and the authorization granted to them under the order shall be cancelled, is she/he was found involved in such political activity/canvassing.”

¶31

The above said provision does not state that mere participation in the political campaign calls for action thereunder. Unless such participation results in the hampering the public distribution system, no action under it can be taken. Since the order doesn’t find that the alleged participation in the election campaigning resulted in hampering the distribution system, the action is illegal. As such, the same is liable to be set aside.

¶32

6. Further, the period of suspension exceeded 90 days and till date, there is no initiation of the proceedings for disciplinary action, much less their conclusion within the said period. It is only when some more time is required for conclusion of the disciplinary action, period of suspension may exceed for valid reasons. In the present case, there is no such requirement because of non-implementation of the proceedings so far. Hence the order is not liable to be set aside for the suspension period exceeding 90 days. This view is fortified by the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of SandraboyinaGuravaiah vs The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors, 2015 (3) ALD 102, it was held at para No.6 as follows:

¶33

“6. The Division Bench has accordingly clarified the order of the learned Single Judge to the effect that the order passed by him did not lay down the general proposition of law that the maximum period of suspension can only be for a period of 90 days. In that context, the Division Bench has made the following observation - But we must also rush to add that what is reasonable period of suspension will vary from case to case depending upon various factors, though

¶34

¶35

BSB, J

¶36

W.P.No.16796 of 2024

¶37

more often than not, a period of 90 days should ordinarily be sufficient to conclude the enquiry.

¶38

On a careful analysis of the judgments in Sukwinder Pal Bipal Kumar (3 supra) and Joint Collector (2 supra), I respectfully disagree with the view of the learned Judge in D. Sambasiva Rao (1 supra). As noted hereinbefore, the Division Bench itself has clarified that no general proposition could be laid down that in every case, the maximum period of suspension could be only 90 days and that what is reasonable period of suspension may vary from case to case depending upon various factors.”

¶39

7. The record shows that the 3^rd respondent has not observed the principles of natural justice before passing the impugned order. In similar circumstances, this High Court vide order dated 11.11.2024 in W.P.No.24836 of 2024 set aside the similar order and directed to conduct fresh enquiry. In view of the said order and for the reasons alike, this Court is of view that this is a fit case to allow the writ petition.

¶40

8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the proceedings vide Rc.NO.475/2024, dated 04.04.2024.

¶41

9. The respondents are directed to continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer in respect of fair price shop dealer vide shop No.1205010 of Ameenpalli village, Guntakal Mandal, Anantapuramu District, as usual. This order does not preclude the enquiry to be conducted based on evidence, if any, to take action for violation of clause 12(s) of the APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018.There shall be no order as to costs.

¶42

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶43

___________________ ___ JUSTICE B.S. BHANUMATHI

¶44

Date: 11.11.2024 KMS

¶45

¶46

BSB, J W.P.No.16796 of 2024

¶47

190

¶48