The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.32779 of 2014 Dated 31.10.2014 Between:
A.Anandamma And State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Secretary, Consumer Affairs, Food & Civil Supplies Dept., Hyderabad and 2 others.
…Petitioner …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.L.J.Veera Reddy Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies The Court made the following:
Order:
Order, dated 16-10-2014, in R.C.No.160/2014, which is impugned in this Writ Petition, is yet another unconscionable order being passed by the licensing/disciplinary authorities against the fair price shop dealers.
The only ground on which respondent No.3 has suspended the petitioner’s authorization in respect of fair price shop No.31 of T.N.pali Village, is that during the inspection of the said shop, variations of 75 kgs out of the total quantity of 6.44 quintals of PDS and AAY rice and 22 liters out of 820 liters of kerosene oil were found. Under Clause 24 of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 (for short ‘the 2008 Control Order’), the variation upto 1.5% of the total stock is permissible. From the details mentioned in the impugned order, it is evident that the alleged variations are well within those permissible limits. Still, respondent No.3 has suspended the petitioner’s fair price shop authorization.
There is one more anomaly in the order passed by respondent No.3. He has not indicated therein the period for which he has suspended the petitioner’s fair price shop authorization. Under Clause 5 (7) of the 2008 Control Order, respondent No.3 has the jurisdiction to suspend the fair price shop authorization for a maximum period of 90 days. Respondent No.3 seems to be oblivious of even this position. In my opinion, respondent No.3 appears to have suspended the petitioner’s fair price shop authorization contrary to the 2008 Control Order for extraneous reasons.
Therefore, the impugned order in R.C.No.160/2014, dated 16-
10-2014, issued by respondent No.3, is set aside. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed not to initiate any disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner based on report, dated 10-10-2014, submitted by the Vigilance Authorities, Anantapur, and report, dated 15-10-2014, submitted to the District Collector (CS), Anantapur. Respondents shall pay costs of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner.
The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed to the extent indicated above.
As a sequel, WPMP.No.40987 of 2014, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of.
(C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Dt: 31st October, 2014
LUR