Smt Chinna Nagamma vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

WRIT PETITION No.19584 of 2020

ORDER:

This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking to declare the action of Respondent No.3 in passing final orders dated 04.03.2020 vide Rc.K11/2739-A/2019 by suspending the authorization of the petitioner Fair Price Shop No.1219007 of B.T Project Village, District as illegal and arbitrary.

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

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as Fair Price Shop Dealer of B.T.Project Village(FP shop No.1219007) Gummagatta Mandal, Anantapur District through proceedings of the 4th respondent dated 19.06.2014. Since from the date of appointment, the petitioner is running the Fair Price Shop and distributing the same to the cardholders without any complaints from the cardholders. While that being the position, basing on the report of the 5th respondent dated 11.09.2019, the 3rd respondent has issued the show-cause notice dated 04.10.2020 alleging some charges against the petitioner. After receiving the said notice, the petitioner has submitted his explanation to the said show-cause notice explaining that he has not contravened any clauses of A.P. Targeted Public Distribution System(control order,2018). The 3rd respondent without appreciating the facts on record and even without affording any personal hearing, has straight away passed order cancelling the license of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has involved in Diversion of Scheduled Commodities in Contraventions of the clause 12(p3), 17 (C) of APS TPDS Control Order, 2018 and the authorization of the Fair Price Shop No.1219007 of B.T. Project, Gummagattamandal issued in favour of Smt. Chinna Nagamma, permanent dealer is cancelled with immediate effect.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per Clause 8(4) of the Control Order, 2018, the appointment authority at any time in the public interest or suo-motu or receipt of the complaint, after making the enquiry as deemed necessary and by giving reasons can suspend or cancel the authorization.

In the instant case, without conducting any enquiry, basing on the report of the 5th respondent, the 3rd respondent has straight away passed the cancellation order which is not only contrary to Clause 8(4) of the Control Order, 2018 but also contrary to the orders passed by this Court in various Writ Petitions.

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in G.Anjaneyulu Vs. Collector(Civil) Supplies, Mahaboobnagar and others1, this Court has categorically held that only based on the report submitted by the concerned officers, the authorities cannot cancel or suspend the license. Even as per Control Orders, 2018, the authorities have to conduct independent enquiry for suspension or for cancellation.

¹ 2005(2) ALT 410

Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents based on the averments made in the counter has submitted that based on the report of the 5th respondent, two charges has been framed against the petitioner.

Charge No.1: that the Fair Price Shop dealer failed to maintain true and correct accounts in violation of Clause 12(P3) of APS TPDS (control) Order, 2018.

Charge No.2: That the F.P Shop dealer failed to maintain adequate stocks of the schedule commodities and also failed to position the stocks in the other than the premises authorized as specified in the condition No.17© of Form of Authorization(Clause 8 of APS TDPS (Control) Order, 2018.

It is further stated that Sri B.Ramachandra counsel for the Writ Petitioner filed a written explanation on 15.11.2019 stating that the allegations made in the charge are denied as not true and the dealer has distributed the commodities properly. It is further averred that according to Clause 29(a) of APS TPDS(Control) order, 2018, minor variation in respect of the single commodity up to 1.5 % may be allowed taking into consideration of transactions of one month. But, in the instant case, the variation is huge. Hence, the authorities have considered and passed the impugned orders dated 04.03.2020.

Surprisingly, there is no response in the counter to the grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Learned Government Pleader is unable to place on record whether any enquiry has been conducted by the authorities before passing such orders.

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the record, as observed by this Court in W.No.13100 of 2015, solely on the ground that no enquiry has been conducted by the respondents before passing the impugned order, the orders of the 3rd respondent dated 04.03.2020 is set aside.

With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

_____________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH

Date : 20.02.2023 tm

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

WRIT PETITION No.19584 of 2020

Date: 20.02.2023

tm