The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.35010 of 2014 Dated 21.11.2014 Between: Neelam Murali …Petitioner And The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Commissioner, Civil Supplies, Hyderabad and 3 others.
…Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.Alladi Ravinder Counsel for the respondents: GP for Civil Supplies (TS) The Court made the following:
Order:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside Order No.C/1855/2014, dated 07-11- 2014, of respondent No.3, whereby he has suspended the petitioner’s authorization in respect of fair price shop No.11, Mungimadugu Shivaru Banjar Village, Narisimhulupet Mandal, Warangal District, pending enquiry.
I have heard Mr.A.Ravinder, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies representing the respondents.
Based on a press report, dated 01-11-2014, and also a complaint given by an MPTC member along with some villagers to the District Collector, Warangal, a door-to-door enquiry was stated to have been undertaken by respondent No.4, on 05-11-2014, in the village regarding the supply of sugar for the month of October, 2014, wherein 47 card holders have, allegedly, complained that they have not received the same. Based on the purported report, dated 05.11.2014, of respondent No.4, respondent No.3 had issued show cause notice No.C/1885/2014, dated 06-11-2014, with the allegation that, as per the press report, the empty sugar packets meant for Ammahastham scheme were found in bushes and that the petitioner was diverting the sugar meant for public distribution into black market. It is further alleged therein that, in the enquiry made, on 05-11-2014, among 250 families, 47 card holders have alleged that they have not received the essential commodities for the month of October, 2014. Before receiving the explanation from the petitioner on the following day i.e., on 07-11-2014, respondent No.3 has issued the impugned order placing the petitioner’s authorization under suspension.
The petitioner has filed a copy of explanation given to show cause notice, dated 06- 11-2014, wherein he has specifically denied the allegation that he was diverting the sugar meant for public distribution into black market. He has specifically alleged that the MPTC member has collected empty sugar packets and threw them in the bushes in order to throw a wild allegation against him that he is responsible for the empty sugar packets being found in the bushes. He has denied his connection with those empty sugar packets. He has also stated that on 05.11.2014, as per the direction of respondent No.4, he has got the social audit conducted and that he has promptly distributed the sugar to all the card holders and that the members of 47 families have deliberately stated falsehood against him.
From the impugned order, it is quite evident that the whole action was initiated at the instance of an MPTC member, who, according to the petitioner, is opposed to him. When a complaint is received from a political activist, it is necessary for respondent No.3 to be more circumspect and verify whether the allegations made are supported by any material. Nothing is discernable from the impugned order that before submitting his report, dated 05-11-2014, respondent No.4 has inspected the petitioner’s shop and verified the sales and stock registers and the physical stock. The only way, by which the allegations made against the petitioner could have been properly verified, was by conducting such inspection and verification of record. Mere finding of certain empty sugar packets in the bushes cannot be made the main basis to take action against the petitioner, for, it is not difficult for any person to plant these empty sugar packets by collecting them from various card holders as alleged by the petitioner. Similarly, the statements of 47 out of 250 card holders by themselves cannot constitute a basis to suspend the petitioner’s authorization unless such statement is corroborated with reference to the sales and the stock registers without examining the record to find out whether there existed any variations between the sales and stock registers and physical balance, the report sent by respondent No.4 cannot have any credibility. In my opinion, respondent No.3 has not made an objective and rational approach in acting on the press report and the report of respondent No.4 without making an independent enquiry. For the above-mentioned reasons, impugned Order No.C/1855/2014, dated 07-11- 2014, of respondent No.3, cannot be sustained either in law or on facts and hence, the same is set aside.
The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed with costs of Rs.5,000/-.
As a sequel, WPMP.No.43800 of 2014, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.
(C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Dt: 21st November, 2014
LUR