Indira Mahila Shakthi Sangham , Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

INDIRA MAHILA SHAKTHI SANGHAM ,, DWACRA GROUP, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT G.SURYAKANTHAM, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC .F.P.SHOP DEALER, SHOP NO.28, KONDAGUNTURU VILLAGE, RAJANAGARAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRI.SECRETARY , CIVIL SUPPLY DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT AT AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶14

THE JOINT COLLECTOR, E. G. DISTRICT AT KAKINADA.

¶15

THE SUBCOLLECTOR, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶16

THE TAHSILDAR, RAJANAGARAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶17

THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, CIVIL SUPPLIES, RAJANAGARAM MANDAL, E.G. DISTRICT.

¶18

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to to issue appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the order passed by the

¶20

2

¶21

3Rirespondent in Ref(D)/3011/2015, dt.23-11-2017 imposing penalty of Rs.2,06,403/- and the consequential notice dt.2-1-2018 issued by the 3rd respondent as wholly, arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently set aside the same by directing the 3rd respondent to restore the F.P.Shop 28 of Kondagunturu Village, Rajanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District in the interest of justice and to pass

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶23

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 3rd respondent not to notify and fill up the F.P.Shop No.28 of Kondagunrutu Village, Rajanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District in the interest of justice and to pass

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶25

1.K VENKATESH

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶27

1.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES (AP)

¶28

The Court made the following:

¶29

3

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

¶32

“….to issue appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the order passed by the 3Rirespondent in Ref(D)/3011/2015, dt.23-11-2017 imposing penalty of Rs.2,06,403/- and the consequential notice dt.2-1-2018 issued by the 3rd respondent as wholly, arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently set aside the same by directing the 3rd respondent to restore the F.P.Shop 28 of Kondagunturu Village, Rajanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District in the interest of justice and to pass….”

¶33

The petitioner herein is Indira Mahila Shakthi Sangham, DWACRA Group. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a fair price shop dealer of shop No.28 of Kondagunturu village, Rajanagaram mandal, East Godavari district vide proceedings dated 22.06.1999 of the 3^rd respondent on temporary basis. Ever since, the petitioner has been running the fair price shop by supplying essential commodities to the cardholders.

¶34

While the matter stood thus, in the year 2015, officials of the Civil Supplies department inspected the petitioner’s fair price shop on 11.07.2015 and have found certain variations, due to which, a case under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act was filed against the petitioner. On 26.07.2015, the 2^nd respondent has issued a show cause notice to the petitioner seeking explanation as to why the seized stock should not be confiscated to the Government. Thereafter, vide order dated 31.10.2015, the 2^nd respondent has ordered confiscation of 40% of the seized stock and on

¶35

4

¶36

25.11.2015, the petitioner has paid an amount of Rs.11,256/- towards the same. Subsequently, the petitioner made several representations to the 3^rd respondent seeking to restore the fair price shop as the petitioner had already paid the aforesaid penalty.

¶37

While so, the 3^rd respondent has again issued a show cause notice on 30.05.2016 seeking explanation of the petitioner as to why the authorization of the petitioner shall not be cancelled, to which, the petitioner has submitted its explanation on 07.06.2016. Subsequently, no action was taken until 23.11.2017, on which date, the 3^rd respondent imposed a penalty of Rs.2,06,403/-. Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted objections on 04.12.2017; and on 02.01.2018, vide notice in Ref(D)43/2018, as a case under Section 6A of Essential Commodities Act was filed, the 3^rd respondent has withdrawn the temporary appointment of the petitioner as fair price shop dealer and appointed the 5^th respondent as a dealer of the aforesaid shop. The main grievance of the petitioner is that though the petitioner has already complied with the orders passed in 6A case, the respondent authorities have withdrawn the petitioner’s fair price shop dealership vide notice dated 08.01.2018. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.

¶38

Heard Sri. K. Venkatesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.

¶39

Today when the writ petition came up for hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader has produced a copy of instructions of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajamahendravaram on a perusal of which, it can be seen

¶40

5

¶41

that initially, after conducting an inspection in the petitioner’s fair price shop, as there were certain discrepancies, a case under Section 6A of the Act was filed against the petitioner and the then Joint Collector, East Godavari issued orders dated 31.10.2015 penalizing the petitioner of 40% of the value of the seized stock. Subsequently, the petitioner has remitted an amount of Rs.11,266/- to Government on 25.11.2015. As the case under Section 6A of the Act was proved against the petitioner, disciplinary proceedings were initiated after duly giving an opportunity of hearing from the petitioner vide notice dated 30.05.2016 and thereafter, the disciplinary proceedings were finalized by the Sub-Collector, Rajamahendravaram by imposing a penalty of Rs.2,06,403/- vide the impugned proceedings dated 21.11.2017. It is further stated that as the case against the petitioner under Section 6A and the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner were concluded a notice was issued to the petitioner vide Ref.D/43/2018, dated 02.01.2018 by the 3^rd respondent withdrawing the temporary appointment of the petitioner and with a direction to handover the fair price shop to Deputy Tahsildar, Civil Supplies. It is further stated that as the petitioner failed to remit the aforesaid penalty, the 3^rd respondent vide proceedings dated 24.12.2020 and 25.01.2021 appointed one Smt. Girajala Dhanalakshmi of Indira Mahila Sakthi Sangham of Kondagunturu temporarily.

¶42

Admittedly, basing on an inspection conducted by the respondetn officials on 11.07.2015, as certain discrepancies were found in the ground stock, a case under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act was booked

¶43

6

¶44

against the petitioner and the same was finalised by the 2^nd respondent vide order dated 31.10.2015, wherein the 2^nd respondent has ordered confiscation of 40% of the seized stock, which the petitioner has paid on 25.11.2015. Subsequently, the 3^rd respondent has initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner on 30.05.2016 by issuing a show cause notice, which admittedly is after a period of six months from the date of finalisation of the case under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act.

¶45

At this juncture, this Court feels it appropriate to refer to Clause 20 (i) of Control Order, 2018 and the same is extracted hereunder:

¶46

“The inspecting authorities as and when found contravention of the provisions of this Order shall submit necessary inspection reports for initiation of disciplinary action under this Order. In case of seizure of scheduled commodities, for any violation or contravention of the provisions of this Order, a report of seizure shall be submitted to Collector/Joint Collectors, as the case may be, for initiating the action under Section 6- A(1) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Simultaneously, a separate report shall be filed for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against errant dealer under the provisions of this Order and for violating the conditions and authorization”.

¶47

It can be seen from the afore extracted clause, that when the inspecting officials find contravention of the provisions of the control order by a fair price shop delaler, they shall submit two separate inspection reports, one for initiation of disciplinary action and the other for initiating action under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act. In the present case, it is evident that the respondents have initiated disciplinary proceedings against the fair price shop dealer on 30.05.2016 which is after the finalisation of the proceedings under Section 6(A) of the Essential Commodities Act and not simultaneously. The

¶48

7

¶49

said action of the respondents is contrary to the provisions of the Control Order. Therefore, the action of the respondents in initiating disciplinary action subsequent to the conclusion of the 6(A) proceedings, is in violation of the Control Order and as such, the same is liable to be set-aside.

¶50

In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed and the order passed by the 3^rd respondent in Ref.(D)/3011/2015, dated 23.11.2017 is hereby setaside. Further, the respondents are directed to restore the fair price shop No.28 of Kondagunturu village, Rajanagaram mandal, East Godavari District, in favour of the petitioner herein. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶51

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶52

____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶53

Date :17.09.2025. Gss

Indira Mahila Shakthi Sangham , v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indira Mahila Shakthi Sangham , v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Muthamsetty Naga Sudhir Vs the State of Ap

Pragathi Mahila Sakthi Sangam Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Kolluri Viswa Janani, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

N.Rama Sanjeeva Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M Bhaskar Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P.Rama Rao, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh