THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.39872 of 2014 Dated: 26.12.2014 Between:
Sri Karanam Krishna Rao .. Petitioner and The State of A.P. rep. by its Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, and others.
.. Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. V.Sudhakar Reddy Counsel for the respondents : A.G.P. for Civil Supplies (A.P) Sri B.S.Mani Kumar. (SC for TSSPDCL) The court made the following:
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not supplying the essential commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop No.20 of Ippili Village, Srikakulam Mandal, Srikakulam District, as illegal and arbitrary.
The petitioner is a permanent fair price shop dealer of the above- mentioned shop. Evidently, his shop was inspected on 25.07.2014 by the revenue officials. A copy of the mediator’s report would show that the ground stocks have tallied with the stock register. However, an observation was made that there are variations in the sales register. This Court is unable to understand the purport of that statement. Be that as it may, the entire stocks were stated to have been handed over to the Village Officer in the presence of the mediators and proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) have been initiated. The petitioner averred that while the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act are pending, respondent No.3 has withheld the stocks in spite of his authorisation being in subsistence. He has, therefore, filed the present writ petition seeking the relief as mentioned above.
At the hearing, Mr.B.S.Mani Kumar, learned counsel representing a third party, placed before the Court, proceedings in RC.No.298/2014 CS, dated Nil-08-2014, of respondent No.3, which was addressed to respondent No.2 recommending the name of one K.Anasuya and other members of Sri Chaitanya Self Help Group for being appointed as in- charge dealer.
In my opinion, the very initiation of proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act based on the mediator’s report, dated 25.07.2014, is illegal, as no specific irregularities have been pointed out in the said report. On the contrary, there is a specific observation that stocks have tallied with the stock register. Since the validity of the initiation of proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act is not the subject matter of this writ petition, I refrain from rendering conclusive opinion with regard thereto in the present writ petition. Be that as it may, the petitioner’s authorisation is stated to be subsisting. Therefore, the proposal made by respondent No.3 to respondent No.2 to appoint an incharge dealer, while the petitioner’s authorisation is in force, is wholly illegal and unwarranted.
Sri B.S.Manikumar, learned counsel, submitted that so far his client has not been appointed as incharge dealer.
In the above facts and circumstances, respondent No.2 is directed not to consider the recommendation of respondent No.3 for appointment of an incharge dealer so long as the petitioner’s authorisation remains in force. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are also directed to forthwith resume supplies to the petitioner for distribution through his fair price shop.
The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed.
As a sequel, W.P.M.P.No.50001 of 2014, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 26.12.2014 v v