The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.32031 of 2014 Dated 27.10.2014 Between:
Patta Naseema And The State. of A.P., Rep. by its Prl.Secretary, Civil Supplies dept., Hyderabad and 4 others.
…Petitioner …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.I.Koti 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 order on the stay application filed by the petitioner in the appeal filed by him against the proceeding in Rc.No.4519/2014-B, dated 10-09-2014, issued by respondent No.3, as illegal and arbitrary.
I have heard Mr.I.Koti Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies representing the respondents.
The petitioner is the authorized dealer of fair price shop No.12 of Vinukonda Town and Mandal, Guntur District. The Civil Supplies Tahsildar, Vinukonda, has inspected the said fair price shop and submitted his report under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, on 01-09-2014. As per the said report, the petitioner has not maintained the records properly, which lead to variation of 30 kgs of PDS rice, she has diverted the stock into black market by making vague entries and she has not filed DDs for all the essential commodities allotted to her shop, causing inconvenience to the card holders, besides not exhibiting the stock-cum-price board and not obtaining renewal certificate for the Electronic Weighing Machine. On the basis of these allegations, respondent No.3 has suspended the petitioner’s fair price shop authorization vide Rc.No.4519/2014-B, dated 10-09- 2014.
Since the appeal filed against the aforesaid order of suspension is pending before respondent No.2, this Court refrains from expressing conclusive opinion on its legality. However, it will suffice to observe that the only substantive allegation made by respondent No.3 in his order of suspension is that there is variation of 30 kgs of PDS rice. Interestingly, the order of suspension does not mention whether the said variation is within the permissible limits of 1.5% as per Clause 24 of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 or not. In my opinion, mere variation of 30 kgs of PDS rice ought not to have constituted a ground for suspension of the petitioner’s fair price shop authorization. Similarly, allegations Nos.2 to 5 mentioned in the impugned order also are not serious enough to keep the said order under suspension pending disposal of the appeal. In this view of the matter, the proceeding in Rc.No.4519/2014-B, dated 10-09-2014, of respondent No.3 is suspended, pending disposal of appeal by respondent No.2.
The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed to the extent indicated above.
As a sequel, WPMP.No.40047 of 2014, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.
(C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Dt: 27th October, 2014
LUR