THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.35185 of 2014 Dated: 19.11.2014 Between:
A. Anuradha .. Petitioner and The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and others.
.. Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. N. Aswartha Narayana Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies (A.P.) The court made the following:
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside proceedings in Rc.No.(F)2465/2014 dated 05.11.2014 of respondent No.3, whereby he has suspended the petitioner’s fair price shop authorization pending enquiry, mainly on the ground that there are certain variations in rice, sugar and wheat.
A perusal of the impugned order shows that the variation in sugar and wheat is well within the permissible limits under Clause 24 of the A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008. With respect to rice, it is alleged that there was shortfall of 1.33 quintals. However, in her explanation, the petitioner has categorically stated that out of 87 bags of 50 kgs. of rice each, 9 Nos. of bags were found in stitched condition and in respect of each of these bags, there was shortfall of one or two kgs. of rice and that, therefore, the variation has occurred. In the impugned order, though respondent No.3 has specifically extracted the explanation submitted by the petitioner, he has not dealt with the same except stating that the reasons mentioned by the petitioner are not convincing. Having invited explanation by issuing a show-cause notice, it is incumbent upon respondent No.3 to deal with the explanation and give specific reasons for his coming to the conclusion that the explanation is not convincing. This Court finds that the procedure followed by respondent No.3 is rather strange, in that having issued the show-cause notice, he ought to have held an enquiry and pass a final order instead of passing an order of suspension pending further enquiry. Further, the result of charge No.2 will depend upon charge No.1 and charge No.3, which pertains to non-
production of fair price shop authorization, is too insignificant to suspend the authorization of the petitioner.
For the above-mentioned reasons, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside. Respondent No.3 is left free to hold a detailed enquiry, in which he shall give an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner with reference to the relevant registers and records. Respondent No.3 shall hold personal enquiry and make an objective approach, without being blindly guided by the reports of the subordinates or by extraneous considerations, and pass a detailed order, if he chooses to continue with the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner.
The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.
As a sequel to the allowing of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.44010 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 19th November, 2014 IBL