HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.30924 of 2014 Date : 24-12-2014 Between :
L. Lakshmi Kala ..
Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others ..
Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Mr. V.R. Reddy Kovvuri Counsel for respondents : Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies The Court made the following :
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to set-aside order in Ref.No.B/5324/2014, dated 22-9-2014 of respondent No.3 whereby he has suspended the petitioner’s fair price shop authorization.
This Court by order dated 16-10-2014 while admitting the Writ Petition, granted interim suspension by observing that the very initiation of the proceedings on the ground of the alleged variation of 79 Kg. of rice and one packet of sugar (in excess) is wholly unjustifiable.
Respondent No.3 has since filed a counter affidavit.
It is noticed from the counter affidavit that respondent No.3 has not indicated the total quantities of rice and sugar allotted to the petitioner. However, as per the order in Ref.No.1(2)/1977/2014, dated 20-9-2014 passed by respondent No.2 ordering interim disposal of the seized stocks, a copy of which is placed before the Court by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is evident that the total quantity of rice was 66.70 Quintals as against which excess of 79 Kgs. was found. With respect to sugar, as against total quantity of 464 packets, one packet in excess was found. Under Clause 24 of the A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008, variation upto 1.5% of the total quantities supplied to a fair price shop dealer is permissible. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies has not disputed that variation in respect of both rice and sugar are well within the permissible limits as per the said Clause. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that the initiation of the proceedings against the petitioner is wholly malafide and for extraneous reasons.
The impugned order is accordingly quashed and the Writ Petition is allowed, with the direction to respondent No.3 to drop all further proceedings based on the report dated 13- 9-2014 of the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Proddatur. As the action of respondent No.3 is wholly unlawful resulting in avoidable hardship to the petitioner, the incumbent of respondent No.3 is saddled with costs of Rs.10,000/- payable to the petitioner from his personal funds.
As a sequel to the disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.38670 of 2014 stands disposed of.
Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 24-12-2014 AM