THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.33717 of 2014 Dated: 10.11.2014 Between:
G. Appalanarasamma .. Petitioner and The State of Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Prl.Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and others.
.. Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. Umasankar Lokanadham 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.2676/2014CS dated 09.10.2014 of respondent No.3, whereby he has suspended the petitioner’s fair price shop authorization.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies (A.P.).
A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Deputy Tahsildar (C.S.) has conducted an enquiry on 22.09.2014, which allegedly revealed that the petitioner has been selling sugar at Rs.8/- per ½ kg. instead of at Rs.6.75 ps. and kerosene oil at Rs.18/- per litre instead of at Rs.15/- per litre and that she has not produced the authorization.
It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that the allegation that she was selling essential commodities at higher prices is absolutely false and that before her authorization expired, she has submitted the same for renewal. The petitioner has filed a copy of proceedings in Rc.No.72/2013 dated 04.05.2013 of respondent No.4, whereunder he has informed respondent No.3 that the petitioner has submitted her authorization on 02.03.2013 itself for renewal, by paying the prescribed fee of Rs.250/-. From this proceeding, it is clearly evident that non-production of the authorization by the petitioner at the time of inspection was on account of submission of the same for renewal to the competent authority. As regards the allegation that the petitioner was selling essential commodities at higher prices, no instance has been cited by respondent No.3 in his order. The very nature of this allegation requires a detailed enquiry and the petitioner cannot be condemned without being heard on such allegation.
From the above analysis, this Court is of the opinion that suspension of petitioner’s authorization is absolutely uncalled for and the same constitutes patently arbitrary exercise of power by respondent No.3. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and respondent No.3 is directed to continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer pending enquiry. He is also directed to examine the case in an objective manner without being blindly guided by the report of the Deputy Tahsildar or any of his other subordinates.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed.
As a sequel to the allowing of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.42171 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 10th November, 2014 IBL