THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.32305 of 2014 Dated: 28.10.2014 Between:
G. Anjineyulu .. Petitioner and Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad, and others.
.. Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Addula Triveni Reddy 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)1653/2014 dated 12.08.2014 of respondent No.3, whereby he has suspended the petitioner’s fair price shop authorization on flimsy allegations and flippant reasons.
A perusal of the impugned proceedings shows that the inspection of the petitioner’s fair price shop by the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, Chennekothapalli, has revealed that there was excess stock of 1.30 quintals of PDS rice out of 75.06 quintals and 0.07 kgs of atta out of 3.16 quintals. Respondent No.3 has also alleged that the petitioner has distributed commodities to the cardholders with short-weighment and that he has not distributed the essential commodities to the cardholders properly.
After hearing the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, this Court is of the considered opinion that the suspension of the petitioner’s authorization on the above allegations is wholly uncalled for.
In K. Nirmala v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapur, this Court held as under:
“This Court has time and again held that an order of suspension of fair price shop authorization being punitive in nature cannot be resorted to on trivial and flimsy grounds and that unless the appointing authority or the disciplinary authority has the reason to believe that the fair price shop dealer has been indulging in serious irregularities and that his further continuance pending enquiry as a dealer will cause serious prejudice to the public interest, suspension cannot be resorted to. It is regrettable that this principle is being ignored by the competent authorities in many a case. The case on hand is a perfect illustration of how respondent No.2 has failed to make a rational approach by suspending the petitioner’s authorization on the ground of small variations. Respondent No.1 has also completely failed to consider this aspect and rejected the petitioner’s application for stay without even assigning any reasons therefor.”
In Thyrumala Setty Phanindra v. District Collector (CS), Guntur District, this Court, while reiterating the ratio in K. Nirmala (1 supra), further held as under:
“Any order of suspension, even if the same is passed pending enquiry, results in serious adverse consequences to the fair price shop dealer. While exercising this power, the appointing authority needs to use a proper sense of proportion. The power of suspension cannot be exercised as a matter of course. The main purpose of keeping dealership under suspension pending enquiry is to prevent the dealer from tampering with the record. Therefore, only when serious allegations of commissions and omissions in distribution of the essential commodities in the fair price shop are made and a prima facie case is established against the dealer, the power of suspension of authorisation has to be exercised. There may be certain allegations which may not warrant immediate suspension. The case on hand falls in this category where no suspension is warranted, as it is a matter of verification with reference to evidence whether the petitioner has permitted a benami to run the fair price shop or not. Considering the fact that the petitioner's fair price shop is run without any variations between the stock register and the ground stock and without there being any complaints, from any card holders, of improper distribution of commodities and in the absence of any allegation that the petitioner or the person who is allegedly running the fair price shop is indulging in acts, such as diversion of the essential commodities into black market, the hasty action of respondent No. 2 in suspending the petitioner's authorization cannot be sustained.”
At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader has not disputed that the alleged variation in PDS rice is marginally higher than the permissible limit of variation under clause 24 of the A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008, and that the alleged variation in atta is well within the permissible limits. He has also not disputed that the other allegations referred to above, which are verifiable during the enquiry, do not constitute the reasons for the extreme act of suspension of fair price shop authorization.
For the above-mentioned reasons, the impugned order is set aside. Respondent No.3 is cautioned not to resort to suspension or cancellation of fair price shop authorizations on flimsy, frivolous and imaginary grounds and that if he repeats such conduct in future, this Court may take a serious view of the same.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed. As a sequel to the allowing of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.40371 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 28th October, 2014 IBL