The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.31648 of 2014 Dated: 22.12.2014 Between:
P.Sujatha ..
Petitioner and The Revenue Divisional Officer Manthani division, Karimnagar District and 2 others.
..
Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. K.Venumadhav Counsel for respondents: G.P. for Civil Supplies (T.S.) The court made the following:
Order:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside the order in proceeding No.C/687/2014, dated 29-09-2014, of respondent No.1, whereby he has suspended the petitioner’s authorization in respect of fair price shop No.4612 of Peddampet Village, Kamanpur Mandal of Karimnagar District.
The petitioner is the permanent dealer of the aforesaid fair price shop. On 09-09-2014, her fair price shop was inspected by respondent No.2, who, allegedly, found variations between the ground stock and the stock register to the tune of 1.49 quintals of rice, 6 kgs of sugar and 75 liters of kerosene oil. Respondent No.2 has also submitted a report under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Based on his report, respondent No.1 has issued show cause notice, dated 19.09.2014, whereunder he has directed the petitioner to show cause why her authorization shall not be suspended or cancelled. It is alleged in the said memo that there were variations in the stocks of rice, sugar and kerosene oil besides the petitioner allowing a benami person to run the fair price shop. The petitioner has submitted a detailed explanation on 24.09.2014. By the impugned order passed on 29.09.2014, respondent No.1 has suspended the petitioner’s authorization.
A perusal of the impugned order does not indicate as to whether the petitioner’s authorization has been suspended pending enquiry or not. Indeed, respondent No.1 has issued the show cause notice proposing cancellation of the petitioner’s authorization. Having invited an explanation from the petitioner, respondent No.1 is expected to pass a final order after holding enquiry. The fact that respondent No.1 has not mentioned in the impugned order of suspension that the same is passed pending enquiry, presupposes that he has suspended the petitioner’s authorization as a substantive punishment. However, an order of suspension, even as a substantive punishment, can be only for a limited period in contrast to an order of cancellation, which will be permanent. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from patent ambiguity and on this ground alone, it is liable to be set aside. Even assuming that the impugned order is passed pending further enquiry, in my opinion, the same cannot be sustained for the reason that the alleged variations do not appear to be too substantial to suspend the petitioner’s authorization.
As regards the allegation that the petitioner’s fair price shop is being run by a benami person, the show cause notice has not indicated the name of the person, who has been acting as benami. However, in the impugned order, it is alleged that the petitioner is allowing her brother to run the shop. In my opinion, unless a specific allegation is made in the show cause notice, respondent No.1 cannot render a finding against the petitioner for the first time in the impugned order. Therefore, the show cause notice itself is vague and ambiguous and no penalty can be imposed on the petitioner on the basis of such show cause notice.
For the above-mentioned reasons, the impugned order in proceeding No.C/687/2014, dated 29-09-2014, of respondent No.1, is set aside.
The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed.
As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.39562 of 2014, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.
(C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Dt: 24th December, 2014
LUR