The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.39512 of 2014 Dated: 24.12.2014 Between:
Smt.Yerramsetti Rajani ..
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. I.Gopala Reddy Counsel for the respondents: G.P. for Civil Supplies (AP) The court made the following:
Order:
This Writ Petition is filed with the grievance that the respondents have not been permitting the petitioner to distribute the essential commodities through fair price shop No.19 of Chinnapvani Village, Lingasamudram Mandal, Prakasam District, for which she is holding authorization.
I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies (AP) representing the respondents.
The petitioner’s fair price shop was inspected by the Deputy Tahsildar (Civil Supplies) along with the Mandal Revenue Inspector on 17-09-2014. A panchanama was conducted and essential commodities were seized therefrom on the ground that there was variation of 1.05 quintals (excess) out of 67.38 quintals of rice and 8 kgs (shortage) out of 2.24 quintals of sugar. Show cause notice under Section 6-B of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) has been issued to the petitioner on 21-10-2014.
The petitioner has pleaded that though no order under Section 6-A of the Act has been passed and her authorization is subsisting as on today, the respondents have stopped allotment of essential commodities to her fair price shop.
A perusal of the show cause notice issued to the petitioner under Section 6-B of the Act shows that the alleged variations of the stocks of essential commodities found during the course of inspection are well within the permissible limits. Therefore, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that the very initiation of proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act is wholly illegal. However, as no relief is claimed with respect to the validity or otherwise of the said proceedings, this Court refrains from expressing a conclusive opinion thereon. But, this Court is unable to approve the conduct of respondent Nos.3 and 4 in not permitting the petitioner to distribute the essential commodities only on the ground of pendency of proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act, more so, when the very initiation of the said proceedings appears to be wholly continue as the fair price shop dealer and allot the stocks of essential commodities to her fair price shop for distribution to the card holders.
The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed.
As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.49560 of 2014, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.
(C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Dt: 24th December, 2014
LUR