The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.35073 of 2014 Dated 19.11.2014 Between:
Smt.Y.Kasi Lakshmamma …Petitioner And Govt. of A.P., Rep. by its Prl.Secretary, Civil Supplies, Hyderabad and 3 others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.Kowturu Vinaya Kumar Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies (AP) The Court made the following:
Order:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside the order passed by respondent No.3 vide Rc.G/823/2014, dated 30-10-2014, whereby he has suspended the petitioner’s authorization in respect of the fair price shop of Malyavanthunipadu Village of Markapuram Mandal, pending enquiry.
I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies representing the respondents.
A perusal of the impugned order shows that respondent No.3 has issued show cause notice, dated 15-10-2014, to the petitioner and purporting to consider her explanation submitted in response thereof, he has suspended her authorization.
The gravamen of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, as reflected from Charge Nos.1 and 2 of the impugned order, is that there were variations of the stocks of rice to the extent of 1.23 quintals (excess) and sugar to the extent of 50 packets (shortage). In her explanation, the petitioner has clearly stated that she has first entered the quantity of the commodity to be distributed to each of the card holders, who were standing in the queue; that thereafter, she started distributing the same; and that, in that process, the inspecting officers intercepted the distribution and checked the registers. A perusal of the impugned order shows that though the contents of the petitioner’s explanation were reproduced therein, the same have not been considered at all. This, in my opinion, constitutes serious illegality on the part of respondent No.3. With regard to allegation No.2, the petitioner has stated that she has distributed 360 packets out of 407 packets of sugar, but however, the same could not be entered in the sales register. Even this explanation has also not been considered. It appears respondent No.3, having invited explanation from the petitioner, has proceeded with a preconceived notion and suspended her authorization, without holding further enquiry.
This Court has been, time and again, holding that the licensing authority shall not resort to suspension of fair price shop authorizations on mere allegations without substantiation. The petitioner was appointed as fair price shop dealer on compassionate grounds due to death of her husband, which occurred just three months before the date of inspection. Respondent No.3 appeared to have been oblivious of the inexperience of the petitioner in conducting the fair price shop and displayed a rather harsh approach in suspending her authorization without holding a detailed enquiry.
For the above-mentioned reasons, the impugned order passed by respondent No.3 vide Rc.G/823/2014, dated 30-10-2014, cannot be sustained and the same is, accordingly, set aside. Respondent No.3 is directed to hold an impartial enquiry, in which he shall give the petitioner a fair opportunity of personal hearing of the case with reference to the records and registers and pass a final order with proper reasons.
The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed to the extent indicated above.
As a sequel, WPMP.No.43873 of 2014, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.
(C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Dt: 19th November, 2014
LUR