The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.39649 of 2014 Dated: 24.12.2014 Between:
R.Lakshmi Devi ..
Petitioner and The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and 3 others.
..
Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.L.J.Veera Reddy Counsel for the respondents: A.G.P. for Civil Supplies (AP) The Court made the following:
Order:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents, in not allotting the stocks of essential commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop from the month of November, 2014, as illegal and arbitrary.
A perusal of the record shows that based on the alleged inspection of the petitioner’s fair price shop by the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar on 14-10-2014, show cause notice, dated 27-10- 2014, was issued by respondent No.2. While in the subject portion of the said show cause notice, reference to the inspection of the petitioner’s fair price shop was made, in the third reference, the explanation of one Smt.A.Prasanna, fair price shop dealer of Suddapalli Village, was made and even in the last Para of the show cause notice, the said A.Prasanna was directed to show cause against the proposed termination of her authorisation.
As rightly submitted by Mr.L.J.Veera Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, the impugned show cause notice was issued by respondent No.2 without application of mind. Be that as it may, the petitioner has specifically pleaded that her authorization has been in subsistence following the interim order of suspension granted by this Court, in WP.No.36436 of 2014, on 25-09-2014 and that having allotted the stocks following the said interim order, the respondents have again abruptly stopped allotment of the stocks after the impugned show cause notice was issued.
In my opinion, respondent Nos.2 and 3 have acted with patent illegality and arbitrariness in stopping allotment of the stocks of essential commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop from the month of November, 2014, even when her authorization is stated to be in force. In this view of the matter, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to forthwith resume the allotment of the stocks of essential commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop so long as her authorization remains in force.
The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed to the extent indicated above.
As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.49720 of 2014, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.
(C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Dt: 24th December, 2014 lur