The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.36917 of 2014 Dated 09.12.2014 Between:
Chinnapureddy Brahma Reddy And State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Prl.Secretary, Civil Supplies Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad and 3 others.
…Petitioner …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.I.Gopala Reddy Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies (AP) The Court made the following:
Order:
The facts of this case would reveal that the petitioner is being haunted by the officials concerned. The reasons for this Court to gain such an impression are that the petitioner’s authorization in respect of fair price shop No.30 of Valuguvaripalem Village, Tallur Mandal, was cancelled by respondent No.3 vide Rc.F/4077/2014, dated 03-09-2014. This Court, on 09-09-2014, while entertaining W.P.No.28106 of 2014, filed by the petitioner assailing the said order, has granted interim suspension of operation of the said order. Evidently, to overreach the said order, a purported inspection of the petitioner’s fair price shop was made on 27- 10-2014 and on the allegation that the petitioner has stored 415 liters of kerosene oil at a premises other than the authorized one, proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’), were initiated against him.
It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that the authorized premises was a leased one and as he was asked to vacate the same, he has stored the kerosene oil at another premises after prior oral intimation to respondent No.4.
Be that as it may. Respondent No.4 has withheld the allotment of the stocks of essential commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop, even though no order with reference to his authorization, following the initiation of proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act, was passed by the competent authority.
The entire sequence of events referred to above gives rise to the reasonable presumption that the conduct of the officials in dealing with the petitioner is not fair and bona fide. With the suspension of the order of cancellation of the petitioner’s authorization, his authorization gets revived and so long as the same remains in force, he cannot be prevented from distributing the essential commodities to the card holders of his fair price shop.
The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies (AP), representing the respondents, submitted that the petitioner failed to produce the Demand Drafts.
The above-submission is incredulous for the reason that the petitioner has filed a petition before respondent No.2 as early as 17-11-2014 for a direction to respondent Nos.2 to 4 to allot the stocks of essential commodities to his fair price shop for distribution to the cardholders. The conduct of respondent No.4 appears to be exceptional as, evidently, he has been searching for one reason or the other to withhold the supply of the stocks of essential commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop.
For the above-mentioned reasons, I find that the action of respondent No.4 suffers from malice in law.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed with the direction to respondent Nos.3 and 4 to forthwith release the stocks of essential commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop for distribution so long as his authorization remains in force. Respondent No.4 is saddled with costs of Rs.10,000/-, (Rupees ten thousand only) for acting mala fide, which shall be paid to the petitioner within one month from his personal funds.
As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.46188 of 2014, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.
(C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J)
Dt: 9th December, 2014
LUR