% 17.12.2014 Between:
# Dubba Ramakrishna Reddy . Petitioner And:
$ The State of A.P., reptd by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department Hyderabad and four others.
. Respondents < Gist:
> Head Note:
! Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms Hemalatha ^ Counsel for the Respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies (AP) ? Cases Referred:
NIL Date:17.12.2014 Between:
Dubba Ramakrishna Reddy, S/o D.Pedda Chenna Reddy . Petitioner And:
The State of A.P., reptd by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department Hyderabad and four others.
. Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms Hemalatha Counsel for the Respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies (AP) The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in initiating proceedings under Section 6- A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) based on panchanama conducted on 08.12.2014 and in taking steps to sell the stocks seized from the petitioner’s fair price shop, as illegal and arbitrary.
Based on an inspection of the petitioner’s fair price shop on 08.12.2014 by the Vigilance and Enforcement Inspector, Anantapur along with Mandal Revenue Inspector, Belugappa Mandal and his staff, a report under 6-A of the Act was sent by them to respondent No.2 against the petitioner.
Para-4 of the said report did not refer to the nature of the vague statement that the petitioner has violated the provisions of the Act. A perusal of the panchanama, dated 08.12.2014, shows that a shortage of 1.09 quintals of PDS rice out of 30.48 quintals was found. No other specific irregularities have been pointed out in the panchanama.
Under Clause-24 of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution (Control) Order, 2008, variation of 1.5% of the total stock is permissible. If the said percentage is taken into consideration, the shortfall of the rice is about 70 kgs.
On these facts, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the entire official machinery is misused and the power of the officials is abused, evidently, for extraneous reasons. The petitioner specifically alleged that all this is done due to political vengeance. Though no factual foundation is laid by the petitioner in support of this allegation, the extraordinary manner in which the respondents have acted gives rise to a reasonable presumption that the respondents have acted with oblique motive and mala fide intention. The energies and resources of the official machinery cannot be allowed to be misused for targeting individuals in the name of prevention of malpractices.
On a careful consideration of the facts of the case, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the very act of seizure of the essential commodities only on the allegation that there was shortage of 70 kgs of PDS rice beyond permissible limits, in the absence of any other allegation of omissions and commissions by the petitioner, constitutes patent arbitrariness and abuse of power on the part of the respondents. Therefore, the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside.
Before parting with this case, this Court feels that the Collectors should apply their mind before initiating the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act, instead of mechanically following the report under Section 6-A of the Act sent by their subordinates. Initiation of proceedings in a mechanical manner without proper application of mind would not only waste the precious time of the Collectors, but it also results in serious harassment of the fair price shop dealers. At best, the Collectors can direct the appointing authority that if marginal variations are noticed during inspection, they should advise the dealers to be more careful in future.
With the above observations, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings are set aside. The respondents are directed to forthwith return the seized stocks to the petitioner to enable him to continue as the fair price shop dealer. Respondent No.1 shall circulate copies of this order to all the District Collectors and the Joint Collectors of the State with a direction to strictly act in accordance with this judgment.
As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.48583 of 2014 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.
JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY 17th December 2014 Note:
LR copies to be marked. B/o DR