THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.38577 of 2014 Dated: 16.12.2014 Between:
Smt. D. Mastanamma .. Petitioner and The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, and others.
.. Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. D. Kasim Saheb Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies (A.P.) The court made the following:
ORDER:
The petitioner, who is the fair price shop dealer of Gobbur Village, Peddaraveedu Mandal, Prakasam District, filed this writ petition, feeling aggrieved by issue of show-cause notice No.Rc.CS1/6-A/344/2014 dated 10.11.2014, under Section 6-B of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’).
Based on an inspection made by the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Markapur, the essential commodities from the petitioner’s fair price shop were seized on the solitary allegation that out of total quantity of 1334 litres of kerosene, 70 litres of kerosene was found in excess. A perusal of the impugned show-cause notice would show that in respect of other essential commodities, there were absolutely no variations. Indeed, in respect of total quantity of 116.86 quintals of four varieties of rice, namely; PDS rice, AAY rice, AP rice and MDM rice, there are no variations and similarly there is no variation in respect of 3.78 quintals of sugar. This Court wonders as to whether it is appropriate for respondent No.2 to accept the report under Section 6-A of the Act and initiate proceedings under the said provision, only for the reason that 70 litres of kerosene was found in excess out of the total quantity of 1334 litres.
Under Clause 24 of the A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008, the permissible variation is upto 1.5% of the total stock. Even if the said regulation is strictly applied, the permissible variation in kerosene could be around 20 litres. In my opinion, for a variation of 50 litres of kerosene in excess of the permissible variation, initiation of proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act is absolutely unjustifiable and unreasonable. The action initiated is wholly out of sense of proportion. At best, respondent No.3, who is the appointing authority, ought to have cautioned the petitioner to conduct the shop without variations in future. The time and energies of the State functionaries shall not be allowed to be wasted on initiating vexatious proceedings such as the present one.
For the above-mentioned reasons, the impugned show-cause notice is quashed. The petitioner shall be permitted to resume her functions as fair price shop dealer.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed.
As a sequel to the allowing of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.48304 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 16th December, 2014 IBL