Rayi Padmavathi Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

RAYI PADMAVATHI, W/O R.POTHU RAJU AGE.40 YEARS, OCC. FP SHOP DEALER OF F.P.SHOP NO.0317018, GURANNADORAPALEM VILLAGE NARSIPATNAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DIST.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DIST.

¶14

THE JOINT COLLECTOR CS, VISAKHAPATNAM TOWN, VISAKHAPATNAM DIST.

¶15

THE SUBCOLLECTOR/REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NARSIPATNAM DIVISION, VISAKHAPATNAM DIST.

¶16

THE TAHSILDAR, NARSIPATNAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DIST

¶17

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶18

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 or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the order issued by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.No.221/2021 dt.182-2022 cancelling the petitioner's authorization for the FP Shop No.0317018, Gurannadorapalem Village, Narsipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam Dist., without assigning any valid reasons and without following the procedure as

2

VS,J

W.P.No.6786 of 2022

contemplated under AP State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order,2018 as illegal, arbitrary, biased manner and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the said order and direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as FP Shop dealer as usual and pass

¶23

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶24

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 operation of the order issued by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.No.221/2021 dt.18-2-2022 cancelling the authorization of the petitioner in respect of the F.P.Shop No.0317018, Gurannadorapalem Village, Narsipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam Dist., by continue the petitioner as FP Shop dealer, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶25

IA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶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 implead the petitioner herein as Respondent No.5 in W.P.No.6786 of 2022 as well as in I.A.No.1 of 2022 and all its consequential proceedings, in the interests of justice and pass

¶27

IA NO: 3 OF 2022

¶28

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 vacate the interim order passed in I.A.No. 01 of 2022 in W.P.No.6786 of 2022 dated 25.03.2022 and pass

¶29

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶30

1.M M M SRINIVASA RAO

¶31

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶32

1.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

¶33

The Court made the following:

¶34

3

¶35

VS,J W.P.No.6786 of 2022

¶36

ORDER:

¶37

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

¶38

“….to issue a writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the order issued by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.No.221/2021 dt.18-2-2022 cancelling the petitioner's authorization for the FP Shop No.0317018, Gurannadorapalem Village, Narsipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam Dist., without assigning any valid reasons and without following the procedure as contemplated under AP State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order,2018 as illegal, arbitrary, biased manner and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the said order and direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as FP Shop dealer as usual and pass….”

¶39

The petitioner herein is a permanent fair price shop dealer of shop No.0317018, Gurannadorapalem village, Narsipatnam mandal, Visakhapatnam district and ever since her appointment, the petitioner has been distributing essential commodities to the cardholders without there being any complaints from whomsoever concerned.

¶40

While the matter stood thus, on receipt of information from volunteers that the petitioner herein is drawing PDS rice using the cards of deceased persons and is diverting the same into black market, the 3^rd respondent along with Deputy Tahsildar (CS), Narsipatnam visited the subject village on 26.03.2021 and conducted a door to door enquiry. During such enquiry, the cardholders stated that from February, 2021, they have been getting five

4

VS,J

W.P.No.6786 of 2022

kilograms of extra rice through door delivery. The petitioner is alleged to have drawn the rice of deceased units and diverted the stocks into black market. As such, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 05.04.2021, calling for her explanation within a period of seven days. On the same day, the 3^rd respondent, vide proceedings in Rc.No.221/2021/F, dated 05.04.2021, suspended the petitioner’s authorization, which was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in W.P.No.12089 of 2021 and the said writ petition was disposed of on 25.10.2021, directing the respondents to continue supply of essential commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop pending enquiry and granted liberty to the respondent to complete enquiry and to pass appropriate orders thereon by following due process of law.

¶45

Pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, the petitioner was allegedly given opportunity of personal hearing on 18.12.2021, 30.12.2021, 05.02.2022 and on 14.02.2022. The 3^rd respondent, after considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner and the report submitted by the Assistant Supply Officer, Narsipatnam, concluded that the petitioner has violated clause 12(P)(3) of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018. As such, vide impugned proceedings dated 18.02.2022, the 3^rd respondent cancelled the authorization of the petitioner. The grievance

¶46

of the petitioner is that when another fair price shop dealer of shop No.03360461 of Lachannapalem village, Makavarapalem mandal has

5

VS,J

W.P.No.6786 of 2022

committed a similar offence, the 3^rd respondent, vide proceedings dated 19.02.2022 imposed penalty of Rs.20,000/- and restored the authorization of the said fair price shop dealer. However, as the respondent authorities cancelled the authorization of the petitioner herein vide impugned proceedings dated 18.02.2022, the present writ petition is filed.

¶51

The 5^th respondent herein, who claims that he along with others have submitted complaint against the petitioner, filed a counter affidavit along with vacate stay petition duly denying the contentions raised by the petitioner and stated that the impugned proceedings were passed by the respondent authorities after duly following the procedure prescribed under law, as such, requested this Court to dismiss the writ petition.

¶52

Heard Sri. M.M.M. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.

¶53

When the writ petition came up for hearing on 25.03.2022, this Court, has suspended the operation of the order issued by the 3^rd respondent dated 18.02.2022 pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶54

While passing the interim order, as this Court observed that under similar circumstances, though another fair price shop dealer committed a similar offence, the 3^rd respondent imposed a mere penalty and restored the authorization of the said dealer, the petitioner’s authorization was cancelled in

6

VS,J

W.P.No.6786 of 2022

the present case, this Court has directed the jurisdictional Collector to conduct an enquiry into the matter and submit a report. Accordingly, learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted a report dated 23.03.2023 wherein it is stated that the petitioner herein has diverted 865 kilograms of rice which belongs to 24 cardholders’ death units, whereas the fair price shop dealer of shop No.0336046 diverted only 230 kilograms of rice which belongs to 9 cardholders’ death units. It is further stated that the petitioner cannot compare her case with others as the petitioner has diverted large amount of stock into black market.

¶59

Perused the entire material available on record. It can be seen that upon receipt of information from volunteers alleging that the petitioner was drawing PDS rice using the cards of deceased persons and diverting the same to the black market, the 3^rd respondent, along with the Deputy Tahsildar (CS), Narsipatnam, visited the subject village on 26.03.2021 and conducted a door-to-door enquiry. During the enquiry, the cardholders stated that, from February 2021 onwards, they had been receiving an additional five kilograms of rice through door delivery. It was alleged that the petitioner had drawn rice meant for deceased units and diverted the stock to the black market. Consequently, a show cause notice dated 05.04.2021 was issued to the petitioner, seeking her explanation within seven days. On the same day, the 3^rd respondent, vide proceedings in Rc.No.221/2021/F dated 05.04.2021,

7

VS,J

W.P.No.6786 of 2022

suspended the petitioner’s authorization. The said proceedings were challenged by the petitioner before this Court in W.P. No.12089 of 2021, which was disposed of on 25.10.2021, directing the respondents to continue the supply of essential commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop pending enquiry, while granting liberty to the respondents to complete the enquiry and pass appropriate orders in accordance with due process of law.

¶64

Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner was allegedly afforded opportunities of personal hearing on 18.12.2021, 30.12.2021, 05.02.2022, and 14.02.2022. After considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner and the report of the Assistant Supply Officer, Narsipatnam, the 3^rd respondent concluded that the petitioner had violated Clause 12(P)(3) of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018. Accordingly, by the impugned proceedings dated 18.02.2022, the 3rd respondent cancelled the petitioner’s authorization. However, as a part of enquiry, the 3^rd respondent has afforded opportunity of hearing to the petitioner on various occasions, but, it appears that the cancellation of the petitioner’s authorization is solely based on the report submitted by the Assistant Supply Officer, Narsipatnam. Further, the impugned cancellation proceedings are also silent with respect to the names of the deceased cardholders whose units were allegedly utilized and drawn by the petitioner herein. It also appears that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to

¶65

8

¶66

VS,J W.P.No.6786 of 2022

¶67

examine the legal heirs of the deceased persons whose units were allegedly utilized by the petitioner.

¶68

In view of the above discussion, this writ petition is allowed and impugned proceedings dated 18.02.2022 are hereby set-aside. Further, the 3^rd respondent is directed to conduct a fresh enquiry in the matter by duly issuing a prior notice to the petitioner and as per the procedure reiterated by this Court in the common order dated 19.11.2025 in W.P.Nos.24493 of 2025 and

¶69

batch. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶70

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Petition shall stand closed.

¶71

____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶72

17.12.2025 Gss

Rayi Padmavathi v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rayi Padmavathi v. 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.Venkata Rao,& 44 Vs State of Ap,Prl.Scy,M.a.D,Hyd,& 4

Harsha Electronics Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kondala Jayalakshmi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri Chava Seshagiri Rao Vs the State of Ap

Vegeswarapuram Lift Irrigation Scheme Ayacutdars Sangham, Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Katragadda Siva Rama Krishna Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh