The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.32821 of 2014 Dated 31.10.2014 Between:
V.Jayarami Reddy And The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Prl.Secretary, Civil Supplies Dept., Hyderabad and 3 others.
…Petitioner …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 interim order in the appeal filed by the petitioner against the proceeding in Rc.F/5854/2014, dated 22-10-2014, of respondent No.3 whereby he has suspended the petitioner’s authorization in respect of fair price shop No.7 of Sivarampuram Village, Tallur Mandal, Prakasam District.
I have heard Mr.I.Gopala Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies representing the respondents.
Since the appeal filed by the petitioner against the suspension order passed by respondent No.3 is pending before respondent No.2, I refrain from rendering conclusive findings on the legality or otherwise of the said order. However, a perusal of the said order would prima facie show that the petitioner’s authorization was suspended on grounds such as variation of 82 kgs out of 85.80 quintals of rice, the fair price shop is being maintained by one Boggula Srinivasa Reddy and the petitioner is distributing only 20 kgs as against 35 kgs of AAY rice to a batch of 10 card holders In my prima facie opinion, the alleged variation of 82 kgs of rice is within permissible limits under Clause 24 of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008.
With regard to the allegation of permitting one Boggula Srinivasa Reddy to distribute the essential commodities, the petitioner pleaded that he is a physically handicapped person and that he has merely taken the help of the said person. On the allegation that the petitioner distributed only 20 kgs instead of 35 kgs of AAY rice to a batch of 10 card holders, the same has been denied. Both these two allegations need to be verified in the enquiry. In my prima facie opinion, they do not constitute sufficient grounds for suspension of the petitioner’s fair price shop authorization.
For the above-mentioned reasons, the proceeding in Rc.F/5854/2014, dated 22-10-2014, issued by respondent No.3 is suspended pending disposal of appeal by respondent No.2.
The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
As a sequel, WPMP.No.41032 of 2014, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.
(C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Dt: 31st October, 2014
LUR