Point of Law: Appointing authority may, at any time in public interest or suo-moto or on receipt of complaint, after making such enquiry as may be deemed necessary and for reasons to be recorded in writing, suspend or cancel the authorization issued or deemed to be issued to him/her under this Clause

ORDER :

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the proceedings in R.C.No.K3/2566/2019, dated 12.12.2019 cancelling the authorization of the petitioner’s fair price shop No.1285063 of Venugopal Nagar, Ananthapuram District, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently set aside the same.

2. The case of the petitioner is that, she was appointed as permanent Fair Price Shop Dealer for the fair price shop No.1285063 of Venugopal Nagar, Ananthapuram District. From the date of appointment, the petitioner was distributing essential commodities to the card holders without any remark. While the matter stood thus, on 21.08.2019, the 3rd respondent and staff of the District Civil Supplies employees inspected the fair price shop of the petitioner and found certain irregularities, conducted panchanama in the presence of panchayatdars and mediators and seized certain quantity of essential commodities including EPOS mission, weighting mission and handed over to the Mandal Revenue Inspector for safe custody. Based on the panchanama, the rd respondent forwarded the same to the 2nd respondent for initiation of proceedings under Section 6-A of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The 2nd respondent under the influence of local political pressure, cancelled the authorization of the petitioner’s fair price shop vide proceedings in R.No.K3/2566/2019 dated 12.12.2019 without conducting any enquiry. Simply, the 2nd respondent held that the petitioner has not submitted any explanation to the show cause notice issued in Rc.No.K3/2666/2019 dated 01.10.2019, therefore, the authorization of the petitioner is cancelled.

3. It is main contention of the petitioner before this Court is that the variation found as per the panchanama is within the permissible limits. Even otherwise for cancellation of authorization by exercising power under Clause 8(4) of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018(for short ‘Control Order, 2018’) an enquiry is required to be conducted independently by the competent authority and by recording reasons in writing thereof, pass an order either for cancellation or suspension of the authorization during pendency of the enquiry. It is further contended that cancellation of authorization based on a report under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, cancellation of authorization by exercising power under Clause 8(4) of the Control Order, 2018 is in illegality and thereby the order is vitiated by illegality and requested to set aside the same.

4. The respondent filed counter denying the material allegations while admitting inspection of the shop of this petitioner, finding certain variations and seizure of the essential commodities along with EPOS machine and weighing machine itself entrustment to the Revenue Inspector for safe custody etc., The respondent also admitted that the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 were initiated against the fair price shop dealer and also submitted a report for initiation of disciplinary enquiry. On the basis of such report, simultaneously sent along with the request, initiated proceedings, the order was passed under Clause 8(4) of the Control Order, 2018.

5. It is further contended that the show cause notice was issued to the fair price shop dealer calling her explanation for violation of Clause 12P(3) of APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018 but no explanation was submitted thereby the order under Clause 8(4) and 21(c) of APTPDS Control Order, 2018 was passed canceling the authorization of the petitioner’s fair price shop and as such, there is no violation much less violation of any rule and principles of natural justice. Consequently, the petitioner is liable to be dismissed and requested accordingly.

6. During hearing, Sri K.Srinivas, learned Counsel for the petitioner raised three contentions. The first contention is that pa