Kolluri Viswa Janani, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

KOLLURI VISWA JANANI,, W/O NIMMALA RAMBABU, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC. FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER OF SHOP NO. 0825006, R/O INKOLLU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND CIVIL SUPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶14

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CS, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, AT ONGOLE

¶15

THE TAHSILDAR, , INKOLLU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent No.2 in suspending the authorization of the petitioner bearing Rc.No. C52(5)/245228/2019 dt. 28-02-2020, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and contrary to the provisions of A.P.State

¶18

2

¶19

Targeted Public Distribution System Control Order, 2018 and consequently set aside the same,

¶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 to pass orders directing the respondent authorities to continue the petitioner as Fair Price Shop Dealer of Shop No 0825006, Inkollu Village and Mandal, Prakasam District, by suspending the impugned suspension order bearing Rc.No. CS2(5)/245228/2019 dt. 28-02-2020, of the 2nd respondent, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition,

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶23

1.KAVITHA GOTTIPATI

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶25

1.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES (AP)

¶26

The Court made the following:

¶27

3

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

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

¶30

“….to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent No.2 in suspending the authorization of the petitioner bearing Rc.No. C52(5)/245228/2019 dt. 28-02-2020, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and contrary to the provisions of A.P.State Targeted Public Distribution System Control Order, 2018 and consequently set aside the same….”

¶31

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein was appointed as a fair price shop dealer of shop No.0825006, Inkollu village and mandal, Prakasam district in the year 2012 and ever since, the petitioner has been supplying essential commodities to the cardholders, without there being any complaint either from the cardholders or from the respondent authorities. 3. While the things stood thus, on 10.01.2020, the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Parchur and Food Inspector, Chirala inspected the petitioner‟s fair price shop and accordingly, a report was submitted to the 2^nd respondent stating that the petitioner has diverted 47.7 kilograms of sugar, 36 kilograms of MDM rice, 7 kilograms of MDM RG dal and 5 kilograms of ICDS Chenna dal into black market. Pursuant to the same, the 2^nd respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 28.02.2020 seeking explanation from the petitioner, but, however, without waiting for an explanation from the petitioner, on the same day, the 2^nd respondent has issued suspension order dated

¶32

4

¶33

28.02.2020 to the petitioner herein, suspending the petitioner‟s dealership of

¶34

the fair price shop. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed.

¶35

When the writ petition came up for hearing on 06.08.2020, this Court has granted interim suspension of the proceeding dated 16.07.2020 passed by the 2^nd respondent, initially for a period of two weeks which was extended thereafter from time to time.

¶36

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

¶37

Today when the writ petition came up for hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader has produced a copy of the proceedings of the Collector (Civil Supplies), Prakasam district, dated 06.11.2020 wherein it is stated that pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on 06.08.2020, the petitioner herein is being continued as fair price shop dealer of shop No.0825006, Inkollu village and mandal.

¶38

On a perusal of the impugned order dated 28.02.2020, it can be observed that after completion of inspection of the petitioner‟s fair price shop, it was allegedly found that the petitioner has contravened sub clause (c) of Clause 21 and sub clause (f) of clause 10 of A.P. State PDS (Control) Order, 2018 and as such, the authorization of the petitioner‟s fair price shop was suspended pending enquiry. However, nowhere it can be seen that the petitioner was issued a show cause notice and an explanation has been sought from her which is against the principles of natural justice. Except referring to the report of the Tahsildar dated 13.01.2020, it is not mentioned as

¶39

5

¶40

to whether a show before taking adverse action against the petitioner. In B.

¶41

Manjula vs. District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool and others¹

¶42

observed as extracted hereunder:

¶43

“9. This Court is conscious of the fact that the law discussed above was laid down by the Courts in the context of disciplinary proceedings against Government servants and it may not be possible to adhere to the same rigors of procedure in an enquiry against a fair price shop dealer. However, this Court is of the considered opinion that since an order of cancellation of fair price shop visits the dealer with adverse consequences, the appointing authority must adhere to the fundamental Ingredients of an enquiry. The enquiry need not be too elaborate as in the case of a disciplinary proceeding against a Government servant, but it shall follow the basic requirement of an enquiry which in my view must be as described infra.

¶44

An „enquiry‟ pre-supposes an opportunity of personal hearing to the dealer to explain his/her case based on the records such as sales and stock registers. If need be, such enquiry must also include recording the sworn statement of the dealer and witnesses, if any, from his/her side. In cases where either card holders or other persons sent any complaint, they must also be examined in the presence of the dealer or his/her lawyer and the dealer shall be given an opportunity of cross- examining such persons. The licensing /disciplinary authority shall also supply to the dealer all the reports on which he is likely to place reliance to the detriment of the dealer. Unless the dealer has no explanation at all to offer, the licensing/disciplinary authority is bound to hold a detailed enquiry.

¶45

The experience of this Court reveals that the appointing authorities of fair price shop dealers are dispensing with the requirement of making personal enquiry by summoning the dealers. They are merely relying upon the reports sent by their subordinates i.e., Deputy Tahsildars and Tahsildars, behind the back of the dealers and resting their decisions solely upon those reports. This procedure is anathema to the concept of enquiry which otherwise means affording the dealer an opportunity of a fair hearing.”

¶46

1 2015 (4) ALT 572

¶47

6

¶48

In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.CS2(5)/245228/2019, dated 28.02.2020 passed by the 2^nd respondent are set-aside. However, the respondent authorities are at liberty to proceed further against the petitioner, if they feel it necessary, by duly following the principles of natural justice and by duly affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Till the said proceedings are concluded, the respondents shall supply essential commodities to the petitioner‟s fair price shop No.0825006, Inkollu village and mandal, Prakasam district.

¶49

Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶50

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

¶51

____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶52

Date :16.09.2025. Gss

Kolluri Viswa Janani, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kolluri Viswa Janani, 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

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

Psr Constructions Vs the State of Ap

Mr. Muthamsetty Naga Sudhir Vs the State of Ap

Pragathi Mahila Sakthi Sangam Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh