Smt. J. Lakshmi Devi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

SMT. J. LAKSHM I DEVI, W/O. THIMMARAJU, AG E D ABOUT 35 YEARS, FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, F,P.SHOP NO.1225027,RUD R AMPET VILLAGE, ANANTHAPUR A MU MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAM U DISTRICT.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF A NDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, CONSUMER AF F AIRS AND CIVIL SUPPLIES D EPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAV A THI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶13

THE JOINT COLL E CTOR, ANANTHAPURAMU, ANA N THAPURAMU DISTRICT.

¶14

THE TAHSILDAR, A NANTHAPURAMU MANDAL, ANA N THAPURAMU DISTRICT.

¶15

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶16

Petition under Artic l e 226 of the Constitution of India pr a ying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the Hig h Court may be pleased topleased to is s ue a writ order or direction, more p a rticularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2 n d respondent in cancelling the authoriza t ion in Rc.No.K3/2548/2019 dated 0 3 .02.2020 of the petitioner Fair Price Sho p Dealer for Shop No.1225027 of Ru d rampet Village, Ananthapuramu Mandal, Ananthapuramu District basing o n the 6A report

¶17

2

¶18

VS,J W.P.No.4842 of 2020

¶19

submitted by the 3rd respondent as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently set aside the same and pass

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶21

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 cancellation cf authorization of the petitioner in Rc.No.K3/2548/2019 dated 03.02.2020 of the petitioner's Fair Price shop No.1225027 of Rudrampet Village, Ananthapuramu Mandal, Ananthapuramu District by supplying the Essential Commodities to the petitioner's Fair Price Shop, pending disposal of the above writ petition, and pass

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶23

1.K SRINIVAS

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶25

1.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES (AP)

¶26

3

¶27

VS,J

¶28

W.P.No.4842 of 2020

¶29

The Court made the following Order:

¶30

The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the

¶31

Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

¶32

“… to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2^nd respondent in cancelling the authorization in Rc.No.K3/2548/2019 dated 03.02.2020 of the petitioner Fair Price Shop Dealer for Shop No.1225027 of Rudrampet Village, Ananthapuramu Mandal, Ananthapuramu District basing on the 6A report submitted by the 3^rd respondent as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently set aside the same and to pass such other order or order s ….”

¶33

The petitioner was appointed as a permanent fair price shop dealer for

¶34

shop No.1225027 of Rudrampet Village, Ananthapuramu Mandal, Ananthapuramu District, through authorization No.487/2006 dated 16.01.2007 and the same was valid up to 31.03.2020.

¶35

While the matter being so, on 19.08.2019, at about 5:00 hours, the staff of the District Civil Supplies and the 3^rd respondent inspected the petitioner’s fair price shop and found certain irregularities and also conducted panchanama in the presence of panchayatidars and mediators, and seized certain quantity of essential commodities including e-PoS machine and weighing machine and handed over the same to the Mandal Revenue Officer for safe custody. The 3^rd respondent i.e., the Tahsildar forwarded the said panchanama to the 2^nd respondent i.e., the Joint Collector, for initiation of action under Section 6-A of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Thereafter, the 2^nd respondent has issued show cause notice to the petitioner vide Rc.No.K3/2548/2019 dated 01.10.2019. Subsequently, as the respondents

¶36

4

¶37

VS,J W.P.No.4842 of 2020

¶38

have stopped supply of essential commodities to the petitioner, the petitioner was constrained to file writ petition No.15868 of 2019, which was disposed of by this Court on 21.11.2019, directing the respondents to release the e-PoS machine, weighing machine and also the essential commodities to the petitioner to distribute to the card holders allotted to the fair price shop till his authorization is subsisting, which is not suspended or cancelled as per provision of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution system (Control) Order, 2018.

¶39

The case of the petitioner is that basing on the report submitted by the 3^rd respondent on 20.08.2019, the 2^nd respondent straightaway cancelled the petitioner’s authorization vide proceedings in Rc.No.K3/2548/2019 dated 03.02.2020 on the ground that 6-A case is pending as against the petitioner. Challenging which, the present writ petition was filed on the ground that basing on the Section 6-A report submitted by the 3^rd respondent, the petitioner’s authorization was cancelled even without conducting any enquiry as required under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

¶40

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies representing the respondents.

¶41

The respondent No.2 filed a detailed counter, wherein, the facts as stated by the petitioner have been reiterated. But, however, it is stated that the 3^rd respondent i.e., the Tahsildar has submitted panchanama to the 2^nd respondent i.e., the Joint Collector, for initiating action under Clause 8(4) of

¶42

5

¶43

VS,J

¶44

W.P.No.4842 of 2020

¶45

Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution (Control) Order, 2018 and as well as under Section 6-A of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. It is further admitted in the counter that, thereafter, the 2^nd respondent has cancelled the petitioner’s authorization vide impugned proceedings dated 03.02.2020 under Clause 8(4) of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution (Control) Order, 2018.

¶46

On perusal of the impugned proceedings of the 2^nd respondent dated 03.02.2020 and as well as the counter affidavit of the 2^nd respondent, it is evident that, basing on the report submitted by the 3^rd respondent i.e., the Tahsildar for initiating action under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the 2^nd respondent has issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 01.10.2019, without there being another report for initiating disciplinary proceedings and basing on which the 2^nd respondent has straightaway cancelled the petitioner’s authorization vide proceedings dated 03.02.2020.

¶47

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:

¶48

6

¶49

VS,J W.P.No.4842 of 2020

¶50

…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.

¶51

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 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.

¶52

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.

¶53

In view of the same, for the reasons alike in the aforesaid order, this Writ Petition is 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 dated 03.02.2020 passed by the 2^nd respondent in Rc.No.K3/2548/2019 are set-aside.

¶54

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.

¶55

7

¶56

VS,J W.P.No.4842 of 2020

¶57

As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand

¶58

closed

¶59

__________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶60

Dated: 15.09.2025 MDP

Smt. J. Lakshmi Devi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. J. Lakshmi Devi 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gatti Sarojini Vs Vakacherla Veera Naga Venkata Satya Suresh

Adireddy Vijaya Vs Mr M N Harendra Prasad IAS

Koneru Kamala Kumar Vs Potineni Sita Ratna Kumari

P.Annapurna, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P Annapuma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K Janardhan Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh