The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.36516 of 2014 Dated 28.11.2014 Between: G.Govindappa …Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Prl.Secretary Civil Supplies Dept., Hyderabad and 4 others.
…Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.K.Narsi Reddy Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies (AP) The Court made the following:
Order:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside the order in RC.No.1201/2014 E, dated 31-10- 2014, passed by respondent No.4, whereby he has terminated the petitioner’s authorization in respect of fair price shop No.28 of Bhupasamudram Village, Gummagatta Mandal, Anantapur District, based on six charges.
A perusal of the impugned order shows that except placing reliance on the purported report, dated 29-10-2014, of respondent No.5, respondent No.4 has not held any independent enquiry. No material is discussed by respondent No.4 to reject the detailed explanation submitted by the petitioner with reference to each charge.
In Smt.B.Manjula vs. District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool and others[1], this Court has dealt with the scope of the phrase ‘enquiry’ in Clause 5 (5) of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008, and held as under:
“An ‘enquiry’ pre-supposes an opportunity of personal hearing to the dealer to explain his/her case based on the records such as sales and stock registers. If need be, such ‘enquiry’ must also include recording the sworn statement of the dealer and witnesses, if any, from his/her side. In cases where either card holders or other persons sent any complaint, they must also be examined in the presence of the dealer or his/her lawyer and the dealer shall be given an opportunity of cross-examining such persons. The licencing /disciplinary authority shall also supply to the dealer all the reports on which he is likely to place reliance to the detriment of the dealer.
Unless the dealer has no explanation at all to offer, the licensing/disciplinary authority is bound to hold a detailed enquiry.”
If the impugned order is examined in the light of the above judgment, I have no hesitation to hold that the same is unsustainable as no enquiry was held. Therefore, the impugned order in RC.No.1201/2014 E, dated 31-10-2014, passed by respondent No.4, is set aside. Respondent No.4 is directed to hold an enquiry in the light of the judgment of this Court in Smt.B.Manjula (cited supra). Till the enquiry is held and final order is passed, the petitioner shall be continued as the fair price shop dealer.
Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is allowed.
As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.45713 of 2014, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.
(C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Dt: 28th November, 2014
LUR
[1] W.P.No.32713 of 2011, dated 26-11-2014