Kammila Leelavathi Vs the State of Ap

KAMMILA LEELAVATHI, W/O SRINIVASA RAO, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC FP SHOP DEALER, R/O 1-123 BALAJA STREET G.SIGADAM VILLAGE, G.SIGADAM MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY , ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPT, SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI,GUNTUR DISTRICT. AT AMARAVATHI.

¶13

THE JOINT COLLECTOR CIVIL SUPPLIES, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶14

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SRIKAKULAM DIVISION, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶15

THE TAHSILDAR CIVIL SUPPLIES, G.SIGADAM MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶16

THE DY TAHSILDAR CIVIL SUPPLIES, G.SIGADAM MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶17

THE VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER, G.SIGADAM VILLAGE, G.SIGADAM MANDAL,SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶18

THE SUBINSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ENFORCEMENT OFFICE VISAKHA B COLONY SRIKAKULAM

¶19

2

¶20

VS,J W.P.Nos.2605 & 9219 of 2025

¶21

TOWN AND SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶22

THE REGIONAL VIGILANCE AND ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, VISAKHA B COLONY SRIKAKULAM TOWN AND SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶23

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶24

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 topleased to issue a writ order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to the declare the Impugned proceedings of the 4th Respondent vide Rc.No.264//2024/CS/ dt 06.11.2024 issued 6-A proceedings under EC Act pending enquiry without any authority is highly illegal arbitrary violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300 (A) of the Constitution of India and against the orders of this Hon'ble Court in WP.NO.500/2020 dt 8.1.2020 and against the clause 5 of the AP PDS(Control) order 2008 and clause 8 of the AP PDS(Control) order 2018 read with Sec 7 of essential Commodities Act and also violation of the principles of natural Justice consequently set-aside the impugned proceedings of the 4th Respondent vide Rc.No.264//2024/CS/ dt 06.11.2024 and pass

¶25

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶26

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 pleased to Suspend the Impugned Proceedings of the 4th Respondent vide Rc.No.264//2024/CS/ dt 06.11.2024 and pass

¶27

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶28

1.TOTA TEJESWARA RAO

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶30

1.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

¶31

WRIT PETITION NO: 9219/2025

¶32

Between:

¶33

KAMMILA LEELAVATHI, W/O SRINIVASA RAO, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC FP SHOP DEALER, R/O 1-123 BALAJA STREET G.SIGADAM VILLAGE, G.SIGADAM MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM

¶34

3

¶35

VS,J W.P.Nos.2605 & 9219 of 2025

...PETITIONER

DISTRICT

AND

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, ,REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPT, SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶40

THE JOINT COLLECTOR, (CIVIL SUPPLIES) SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT

¶41

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SRIKAKULAM DIVISION, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT

¶42

THE TAHSILDAR CIVIL SUPPLIES, G.SIGADAM MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT

¶43

THE DY TAHSILDAR CIVIL SUPPLIES, G.SIGADAM MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT

¶44

THE VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER, G.SIGADAM VILLAGE, G.SIGADAM MANDAL SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶45

THE SUBINSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ENFORCEMENT OFFICE VISAKHA B COLONY SRIKAKULAM TOWN AND DISTRICT.

¶46

THE REGIONAL VIGILANCE AND ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, VISAKHA B COLONY SRIKAKULAM TOWN AND DISTRICT.

¶47

N BHASKARA RAO, S/O NOT KNOWN F.P. SHOP DEALER (0105002) AND INCHARGE OF F.P. SHOP (0105001) G.SIGADAM VILLAGE, G.SIGADAM MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT

¶48

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶49

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 issue a writ order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS to declare the Impugned proceedings of the 3rd Respondent vide Rc.No.197/2025/CS/ dt 24.02.2025 pending enquiry without any authority is highly illegal arbitrary violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300 (A) of the Constitution of India and against the orders of this Honble Court in

¶50

4

¶51

VS,J W.P.Nos.2605 & 9219 of 2025

¶52

WP.NO.500/2020 dt 8.1.2020 and against the clause 5 of the AP PDS(Control) order 2008 and clause 8 of the AP PDS(Control) order 2018 read with Sec 7 of essential Commodities Act and also violation of the principles of natural Justice consequently set- aside the Impugned proceedings of the 3rd Respondent vide Rc.No.197/2025/CS/ dt 24.02.2025 and pass

¶53

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶54

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 pleased to Suspend the Impugned Proceedings of the 3rd Respondent vide Rc.No.197/2025/CS/ dt 24.02.2025and pass

¶55

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶56

1.TOTA TEJESWARA RAO

¶57

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶58

1.GP FOR HOME

¶59

2.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

¶60

The Court made the following:

¶61

5

¶62

VS,J W.P.Nos.2605 & 9219 of 2025

¶63

COMMON ORDER :

¶64

These Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶65

India seeking the following reliefs:

¶66

W.P.No.2605 of 2025

¶67

“.... to issue a writ order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the Impugned proceedings of the 4^th Respondent vide Rc.No.264//2024/CS/ dt 06.11.2024 issued 6-A proceedings under EC Act pending enquiry without any authority is highly illegal arbitrary violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300 (A) of the Constitution of India and against the orders of this Hon'ble Court in WP.NO.500/2020 dt 8.1.2020 and against the clause 5 of the AP PDS(Control) order 2008 and clause 8 of the AP PDS(Control) order 2018 read with Sec 7 of essential Commodities Act and also violation of the principles of natural Justice consequently set-aside the impugned proceedings of the 4^th Respondent vide Rc.No.264//2024/CS/ dt 06.11.2024 ...”

¶68

W.P.No.9219 of 2025

¶69

“.... to declare the Impugned proceedings of the 3^rd Respondent vide Rc.No.197/2025/CS/ dt 24.02.2025 pending enquiry without any authority is highly illegal, arbitrary violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300 (A) of the Constitution of India and against the orders of this Hon’ble Court in WP.NO.500/2020 dt 8.1.2020 and against the clause 5 of the AP PDS(Control) order 2008 and clause 8 of the AP PDS(Control) order 2018 read with Sec 7 of essential Commodities Act and also violation of the principles of natural Justice consequently set-aside the Impugned proceedings of the 3^rd Respondent vide Rc.No.197/2025/CS/ dt 24.02.2025...”

¶70

Since the petitioner in both writ petitions is one and the same, and the cause raised in both writ petitions is with regard to the same Fair Price Shop, these two writ petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

¶71

6

¶72

VS,J W.P.Nos.2605 & 9219 of 2025

¶73

The petitioner was appointed as a permanent Fair Price Shop dealer for shop No.0105001, Balaja Street, G.Sigadam Village, G.Sigadam Mandal, Srikakulam District in the year 2011 by the 3^rd respondent. The petitioner’s authorization has bee renewed from time to time and was finally renewed on 22.02.2024, which is valid up to 31.03.2025.

¶74

While so, on 06.11.2024, the 4^th respondent authorities, along with respondents 7 and 8, conducted a surprise inspection of the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop. During the said inspection, an excess stock of 944 kgs of PDS rice was found, and the same was seized. Thereafter, proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 were initiated without following the due procedure as prescribed under the said Act. On the very same day, i.e., 06.11.2024, the 4^th respondent passed the impugned proceedings vide Rc.No.264/2024/CS under 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, pending enquriy against the petitioner, and made alternative arrangements by handing over the said shop to the 9^th respondent as incharge dealer. The said action was taken solely basing on the 6-A report, without initiating any independent disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said impugned proceedings, the petitioner has filed the W.P.No.2605 of 2025.

¶75

While the said writ petition was pending consideration, the 3^rd respondent issued a show-cause notice dated 05.02.2025 to the petitioner, calling for an explanation with respect to the alleged variations. In response,

¶76

7

¶77

VS,J W.P.Nos.2605 & 9219 of 2025

¶78

the petitioner submitted her explanation on 09.02.2025. However, without conducting any independent enquiry and without duly considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the 3^rd respondent passed the impugned proceedings Rc.No.197/2025/CS dated 24.02.2025 suspending the petitioner’s authorization, pending enquiry. The said suspension was also based on the same report submitted by the Tahsildar on 06.11.2024 under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act. Aggrieved by the impugned proceedings dated 24.02.2025, the petitioner filed W.P.No.9219 of 2025.

¶79

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant

¶80

Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.

¶81

On perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that the 4^th respondent initiated alternative arrangements for the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop solely based on the report under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. No independent disciplinary enquiry or proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and no showcause notice was issued to the petitioner calling for an explanation prior to the issuance of the impugned proceedings. In the absence of initiation of independent disciplinary proceedings and issuance of a show-cause notice, the action of the 4^th respondent in passing the impugned proceedings and making alternative arrangements for the subject Fair Price Shop is in violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶82

8

¶83

VS,J W.P.Nos.2605 & 9219 of 2025

¶84

Similarly, in respect of the suspension order dated 24.02.2025 passed by the 3^rd respondent, though a show-cause notice was issued and an explanation was submitted by the petitioner, the record does not disclose that any proper or independent enquiry was conducted prior to passing the suspension order. The impugned suspension also appears to be solely based on the same 6-A report dated 06.11.2024, without any other report being submitted by the Tahsildar for initiating disciplinary proceedings.

¶85

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the issue involved in this Writ Petition is squarely covered by the common order, dated 08.01.2020 passed by this Court in W.P.No.500 of 2020 and requested to pass a similar order in this Writ Petition also. The same is not disputed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. The relevant portion of the said order, reads as under:

¶86

…When Clause 20(i) of Control Order, 2018 specified that a separate report is required to be filed by inspecting officer for initiation of disciplinary action against petitioner, in the absence of any such separate report, as contemplated under Section 20(i) of Control Order, 2018, passing order based on report under Section 6-A of E.C Act is impermissible under law, since it is deviation from Clause 20(i) of Control Order, 2018.

¶87

As per Clause ‘q’ of Circular Memo issued by Commissioner, Civil Supplies in No.21/100/2015-AD.1 PP&CCS dated 28.09.2015, proceedings under Section 6-A of E.C Act are separate, as it empowers to decide as to whether the seized commodities are liable for confiscation or otherwise and no order of suspension/cancellation of authorization to be issued, based on report. In view of memo and requirement under Clause 20(i) of Control Order, 2018, in the absence of any separate report for initiation of disciplinary action against the

¶88

9

¶89

VS,J

¶90

W.P.Nos.2605 & 9219 of 2025

¶91

dealer, the order passed by second respondent cannot be sustained, consequently the same is liable to be set aside, declaring the same as illegal and contrary to Clause 20 (i) of Control Order, 2018.

¶92

In the result, the writ petition is allowed, setting aside proceedings in SR.No.130/2019-S5, dated 23-12-2019, passed by second respondent, suspending the authorization of petitioner, declaring the same as illegal and contrary to Clause 20(i) of Control Order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶93

In view of the same, for the reasons alike in the aforesaid order, these

¶94

Writ Petitions are also allowed, in terms of the order dated 08.01.2020 passed by this Court in W.P.No.500 of 2020 and the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.264/2024/CS, dated 06.11.2024 and in Rc.No.197/2025/CS dated 24.02.2025 are set-aside.

¶95

Registry is directed to attach the copy of the order, dated 08.01.2020 passed by this Court in W.P.No.500 of 2020 to this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶96

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these Writ Petitions shall

¶97

stand closed.

¶98

___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶99

Date: 23.09.2025 KGR

Kammila Leelavathi v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kammila Leelavathi v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kalluru Niranjan Reddy Vs the State of Ap

N Yeswanth Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Desu Rama Krishna Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Lingamgunta Dasaradharamaiah Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

D. Venkata Ramanaiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

S Santhamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh