Baby Sarojini Vs the State of Ap

BABY SAROJINI, W/O. ADAPA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCCU HOUSE WIFE, R/O. H.NO. 19, CHENCHUPETA, 19TH WARD, WHITE CARD HOLDER, CARD BEARING NO.WAP068304500165, GUDIVADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, STATE OF A.P.

¶10

SUGUNA KUMARI, W/O. ANDRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCCU HOUSE WIFE, WHITE CARD HOLDER,CARD BEARING NO. WAP0683045A0204. R/O. 19TH WARD,R/O.H.NO.19-555, CHENCHUPETA, GUDIVADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, STATE OF A.P.

¶11

...PETITIONER(S)

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF AP, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, A.P.SECRATARIAT, VERAGAPUCLI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶14

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, (CIVIL SIPPLIES WING), MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT, A.P.

¶15

THE JOINT COLLECTOR, (CIVIL SIPPLIES WING), MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT, A.P.

¶16

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CIVIL SUPPLIES WING, GUDIVADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, A.P.

¶17

THE TAHASILDAR, CIVIL SIPPLIES WING, GUDIVADA TOWN,

¶18

2

¶19

VS,J W.P.No.4751 of 2019

¶20

KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶21

E SIVA KUMAR, S/O. SRI E.YEDUKONDALU, HINDU, AGE NOT KNOWN,OCCU.F.P.SHOP DEALER OF F.P.SHOP NO.45, GUDIVADA TOWN, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

¶22

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶23

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, Oder or Direction more particularly one the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents 2 to 5 in not completing the enquiry against the 6th respondent pursuant to the suspension pending enquiry of his Fair Price shop dealerships in view of the suspension pending enquiry on 08.11.2014 as bad, illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 5 to complete the enquiry against 6th respondent as expeditiously as possible as his dealership was suspended pending enquiry was as long back as on 08.11.2014 and pass

¶24

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶25

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 grant leave to the petitioner herein/Respondent No.4 in the Writ Petition No. 4751 of 2019 to file counter affidavit in the above Writ Petition and pass

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶27

1.G VIJAYA BABU

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶29

1.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES (AP)

¶30

The Court made the following:

¶31

3

¶32

VS,J W.P.No.4751 of 2019

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

The present writ petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the

¶35

Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶36

<…a issue a Writ, Oder or Direction more particularly one the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents 2 to 5 in not completing the enquiry against the 6^th respondent pursuant to the suspension pending enquiry of his Fair Price shop dealerships in view of the suspension pending enquiry on 08.11.2014 as bad, illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 5 to complete the enquiry against 6^th respondent as expeditiously as possible as his dealership was suspended pending enquiry was as long back as on 08.11.2014 ….=

¶37

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

¶38

a) The petitioners are residents of Gudivada Town in Krishna District and are living in 8^th Ward. They are white ration cardholders and have been obtaining ration from Shop No.45 maintained by the 6^th respondent.

¶39

b) The case of the petitioners is that the authorization of the 6^th respondent Fair Price Shop was suspended pending enquiry by the then Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudivada vide Rc.A.J/757/2014, dated 08.11.2014 on the allegation of seeding bogus Aadhar numbers to ration cards. Subsequently, basing on a complaint given by the Tahsildar, Gudivada, an F.I.R.No.189 of 2014 was registered under Section 419, 420, 468, 120-B r/w 34 IPC and Section 43, 65, 66-D of Information and Technology Act, 2000. A charge sheet was also filed on 19.06.2015, which is pending before the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gudivada, wherein the 6^th respondent is shown as accused No.46.

¶40

4

¶41

VS,J W.P.No.4751 of 2019

¶42

c) The petitioners further contended that the 6^th respondent challenging the action of the 4^th respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer in continuing his authorization under suspension vide proceedings dated 08.11.2014 without completing the final enquiry, filed W.P.No.24818 of 2018, wherein this Court on 20.07.2018 passed the following interim order:

¶43

<If the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop dealership has not been cancelled as of date, notwithstanding suspension of petitioner’s Fair Price Shop dealership on 08.11.2014, since final orders have not been passed, there shall be interim direction as prayed for.

¶44

However, this will not preclude the concerned authorities to pass final orders in relation to petitioner, if so advised.=

¶45

d) Despite the interim order passed by this Court on 20.07.2018, respondents 2 to 5 have neither conducted nor completed the enquiry against the 6^th respondent, nor have passed any final orders. This inaction has allowed the 6^th respondent, who was previously found to have indulged in malpractices, to continue as the Fair Price Shop dealer at Shop No.45. The petitioners, being white card holders and regular beneficiaries of the shop, have been directly affected by these irregularities and therefore have the locus standi to file this writ petition. It is further noted that the pendency of the criminal proceedings does not preclude the respondents from completing the departmental enquiry, as criminal and departmental proceedings are separate and distinct. Accordingly, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶46

5

¶47

VS,J W.P.No.4751 of 2019

¶48

The 4^th respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit, stating as follows:

¶49

a) In compliance with the interim orders passed by this Court on 20.07.2018 in W.P.No.24818 of 2018, the authorization of the 6^th respondent was revoked by the then Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudivada vide Rc.D.757/2014 dated 30.07.2018, subject to the pending finalization of the disciplinary case, the outcome of W.P.No.24818 of 2018 and the outcome of the criminal case registered as crime No.189 of 2014 pending before the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gudivada.

¶50

b) Thereafter, W.P.No.24818 of 2018 was disposed of along with similar other writ petitions vide common order dated 10.12.2019, with the following directions:

¶51

<As this Court already passed an interim order on 20.07.2018, suspending the impugned order during pendency of these writ petitions, let the interim order in I.A.Nos.1 of 2018 in respective writ petitions be continued for a period of three months, by which time the third respondent/Joint Collector, Civil Supplies Wing, Machilipatnam, shall pass final order completing the enquiry.=

¶52

c) Pursuant to these directions, the 3^rd respondent/Joint Collector, Krishna called for an enquiry on 25.07.2020 and issued a combined notice vide Rc.A.J/757/2014, dated 22.07.2020 to the 6^th respondent and other F.P. Shop dealers and cardholders.

¶53

6

¶54

VS,J W.P.No.4751 of 2019

¶55

d) Subsequently, the Government, vide G.O.Ms.No.11, Consumer Affairs and Civil Supplies (CS.I) Department, dated 09.09.2020, revised the disciplinary authority for action against Fair Price Shop dealers, transferring the responsibility from the Joint Collector to the Revenue Divisional Officer. Accordingly, the case of the 6^th respondent was transferred to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudivada. Thereafter, the then Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudivada, issued a notice to the 6^th respondent dated 05.01.2021, calling for an personal hearing on 11.01.2021 at 11:00 a.m., and directing him to submit written statements, if any, in response to the charges raised in the showcause notice dated 28.11.2014. The 6^th respondent appeared and submitted his written explanation on 11.01.2021, contending that the charges framed against him were incorrect. Following the enquiry conducted on 11.01.2021, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudivada, issued orders on 20.02.2021 concluding that further action against the 6^th respondent would be taken after the final orders in Criminal Case No.189 of 2014 pending before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gudivada.

¶56

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

¶57

As per the said counter affidavit, it appears that, in compliance with the interim orders of this Court dated 20.07.2018 in W.P. No.24818 of 2018, the authorization of the 6^th respondent was revoked by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudivada, subject to the pending disciplinary proceedings, the

¶58

7

¶59

VS,J W.P.No.4751 of 2019

¶60

outcome of the writ petition, and the criminal case No.189 of 2014. This Court, by order dated 10.12.2019, vide interim order, directed to continue him for three months by which time enquiry by the Joint Collector shall be completed. Pursuant thereto, the 3^rd respondent called for an enquiry on 25.07.2020 and issued notices to the 6^th respondent and other concerned parties. Subsequently, the Government, vide G.O.Ms.No.11 dated 09.09.2020, transferred the disciplinary authority to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudivada. The 6^th respondent was heard on 11.01.2021, submitted his explanation, and the Revenue Divisional Officer vide orders dated 20.02.2021, concluded that further action would be taken after the final orders in the pending criminal case, which in fact is no way concerned with initiation of disciplinary proceedings.

¶61

In the present case, the grievance of the petitioners is only to the extent that the 2^nd respondent has not completed the disciplinary enquiry against the 6^th respondent and that the Revenue Divisional Officer, vide orders dated 20.02.2021, has deferred further action pending the outcome of the criminal case. The petitioners contend that such inaction is contrary to law, as disciplinary proceedings and criminal proceedings are independent, and the pendency of the criminal case cannot bar the continuation or completion of the departmental enquiry.

¶62

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the disciplinary proceedings and criminal proceedings are independent, and

¶63

8

¶64

VS,J W.P.No.4751 of 2019

¶65

pendency of the criminal case does not bar continuation of disciplinary enquiry.

¶66

In view of the above, the Writ Petition is allowed, directing the respondent authorities to conduct an enquiry pursuant to the suspension order dated 08.11.2014 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudivada/ 4^th respondent. The said enquiry shall be completed within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the pendency of the criminal case against the 6^th respondent shall not have any bearing on the enquiry to be conducted by the 4^th respondent. The respondents are directed to continue the 6^th respondent as Fair Price Shop dealer till finalization of the enquiry by the 4^th respondent. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶67

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶68

______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶69

Date: 12.11.2025 KGR

Baby Sarojini v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baby Sarojini 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

M/S. a.N.R.Infra Projects, Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

A N R Infra Projects Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri Vsr Constructions Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Gundapati Hanumantha Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/S.Sew Infrastructure Limted Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Talari Rajesh Kumar Vs the State of Ap