THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.39618 of 2014 Between:
Merugu Vijay Kumar and
DATE: 24.12.2014
…Petitioner The State of Telangana and others …Respondents COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER : SRI S.BHOOMA GOUD COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS 1 to 3: AGP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.39618 of 2014
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside proceedings No.A5/2014, dated 24.11.2014 of respondent No.3.
Petitioner is the dealer of fair price shop No.2, Yellareddy Village and Mandal, Nizamabad District. Based on the inspection of his fair price shop, proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) were initiated. On 24.11.2014, respondent No.3 has issued the impugned proceedings whereby he has entrusted distribution of essential commodities relating to the fair price shop held by the petitioner to respondent No.4, who is the regular fair price shop dealer of shop No.7 of Yellareddy Village.
A perusal of the impugned proceedings shows that the reason for replacing the petitioner with respondent No.4 is pendency of proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act. Following the impugned proceedings, respondent No.2 has issued show cause notice No.B1/4445/2014, dated 26.11.2014, wherein he has mentioned that inspection of the petitioner’s fair price shop revealed shortfall of 10 kgs of Public Distribution System rice, 106 liters of kerosene oil and excess of one packet of sugar. The petitioner has questioned the proceedings of respondent No.3 replacing him with respondent No.4 mainly on the ground that he is not vested with such power under the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 (for short ‘the Control Order’).
At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies (Telangana State) has fairly conceded that respondent No.3 has no jurisdiction to issue the impugned proceedings as respondent No.2 being the appointing authority is alone competent to make any such arrangement after placing the petitioner’s authorization under suspension if the nature of the allegations so warrants.
In view of above-noted fair submission made in accordance with the legal position, the impugned proceedings deserve to be set aside. This Court also finds that very initiation of proceedings by respondent No.2 is wholly illegal and unconscionable.
Under Clause 24 of the Control Order, variation up to 1.5% is permissible. Therefore, variation of 10 kgs of rice and one packet of sugar is well within the permissible limit. In order to know whether the shortfall of kerosene oil by 106 liters is within the permissible limit, respondent No.2 has not mentioned the total quantity of kerosene oil allotted to the petitioner. Therefore, no specific conclusion in this regard can be arrived at. However, even assuming that the quantity of kerosene oil allegedly found short is in excess of the permissible limit, the said quantity being meager does not warrant initiation of any action against the petitioner. Though the petitioner has not specifically questioned the show cause notice, this Court is of the opinion that it would be a travesty of justice if on the allegations mentioned in the show cause notice, the proceedings are allowed to be continued, as the same would cause undue harassment to the petitioner.
For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed by quashing show cause notice No.B1/4445/2014, dated 26.11.2014 of respondent No.2 and proceedings No.A5/2014, dated 24.11.2014 of respondent No.3.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 24th DECEMBER, 2014.
kvni