The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.36684 of 2014 Dated 01.12.2014 Between: Pathakota Anitha …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.I.Gopala 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 declare the inaction of respondent No.2, in passing appropriate order in the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner against the order passed by respondent No.3, in the appeal, vide Rc.CS2/300/2014, dated 13.11.2014, confirming the order passed by respondent No.4 vide Rc/F/3298/2014, dated 30.08.2014, cancelling the petitioner’s fair price shop authorization, as illegal and arbitrary.
Though the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner before respondent No.2 is pending, from the facts of the present case, this Court feels that the order passed by respondent No.4, cancelling the petitioner’s authorization, is not sustainable for the reason that the same is not preceded by any enquiry.
A perusal of order, dated 30-08-2014, passed by respondent No.4, would show that he has cancelled the petitioner’s fair price shop authorization on two charges viz., short fall of 33.17 quintals of PDS rice and excess of 90 liters of Kerosene Oil were found between the ground stock and the stock register during the inspection of his fair price shop, stated to have been held by respondent No.5 on 16-08-2014. To the show cause notice issued by respondent No.4 in this regard, the petitioner has submitted a detailed explanation wherein he has stated that respondent No.5 has caused the inspection of his shop during the midst of distribution of PDS rice to the cardholders and that, therefore, no entries could be made in the sales register in respect thereof. With respect to Kerosene oil also, the petitioner has submitted that respondent No.5 has sent a false report without proper verification of the stock register and the ground stock. Having referred to the petitioner’s explanation, respondent No.4 has not assigned any reasons whatsoever to reject the same. Nothing is discernable from his order that any semblance of enquiry was made by respondent No.4.
While dealing with the scope of phrase ‘enquiry’ in Clause 5 (5) of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008, this Court in Smt.B.Manjula vs. District
[1]
Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool and others 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.”
As respondent No.4 has not held any enquiry, the procedure followed by him is wholly improper and the impugned order, dated 30-08-2014, is, therefore, unsustainable.
For the above-mentioned reasons, the orders passed by respondent No.4 vide Rc/F/3298/2014, dated 30.08.2014, as confirmed by respondent No.3 vide Rc.CS2/300/2014, dated 13.11.2014, are set aside. The case is remanded to respondent No.4 for holding an enquiry in accordance with the procedure indicated in Smt.B.Manjula’s case (cited supra) and then, passing a fresh order. Till this process is completed, the petitioner shall be continued as the fair price shop dealer.
The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed.
As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.45905 of 2014, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.
(C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Dt: 1st December, 2014
LUR
[1] W.P.No.32713 of 2011, dated 26-11-2014