SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(AP) 675

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Battu Devanand, J.
Rella Kusuma Kumari - Appellant
Versus
The State Of A.P. – Respondent
Writ Petition No.18228 of 2019
Decided On : 28-10-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : V. Sudhakar Reddy.
For the Respondent: Metta Chendra Sekhar Rao.

Cancellation of authorization for shortage of rice within permissible limit and without opportunity to explain is illegal and arbitrary.

Headnote:

CANCELLATION OF FAIR PRICE SHOP AUTHORIZATION - ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT, 1955 - SECTION 6-A - CONTROL ORDER, 2018 - CLAUSES 8(4), 10, 12, 29(A) - COURT HELD THAT CANCELLATION OF AUTHORIZATION FOR SHORTAGE OF RICE WITHIN PERMISSIBLE LIMIT AND WITHOUT OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN IS ILLEGAL AND ARBITRARY.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner's Fair Price Shop authorization was cancelled due to alleged shortage of rice found during inspection. Petitioner challenged the cancellation order, arguing that the shortage was within permissible limits and no opportunity was given to explain.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the shortage of rice was within the permissible limit as per Clause 29(a) of the Control Order, 2018, and that it was not a repetitive lapse or irregularity. The court also held that the cancellation of authorization without providing an opportunity to the petitioner to explain was a violation of the principles of natural justice.

Issues: 1. Whether the cancellation of authorization for shortage of rice within permissible limit is legal? 2. Whether cancellation of authorization without providing an opportunity to explain is a violation of the principles of natural justice?

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Clause 29(a) of the Control Order, 2018, which provides for permissible limits of variation in ground balance of rice. The court also relied on the principles of natural justice, which require that a person should be given an opportunity to explain before a decision is taken against them.

Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and set aside the cancellation order. The court directed the respondents to continue the petitioner as Fair Price Shop dealer.

ORDER :

1. This writ petition has been filed against the Order in SR.No.37 of 2019, S5, dated 25.10.2019 issued by the Joint Collector, Srikakulam i.e., the 2nd respondent herein, cancelling the authorization of the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop bearing No.0120046 of Segidipeta, H/o Srikurmam Village, Gara Mandal, Srikakulam District.

2. This Court by Order 23.03.2021 allowed the present Writ Petition. As per the direction in W.A.No.106 of 2020, the said Order is recalled directing the petitioner to implead 3rd party as respondent in the Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Petitioner filed implead Petition in I.A.No.01 of 2021 and it is allowed impleading as Respondent No.4.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. There is no representation on behalf of respondent No.4, though this case is adjourned several times for their appearance. Perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a permanent Fair Price Shop dealer of Segidipeta, H/o Srikurmam Village, Gara Mandal. He has been distributing the essential commodities to the card holders for more than 11 years without any complaint. On 06.08.2019, the Inspector of Police, Regional Vigilance and Enforcement along with Mandal Revenue Inspector-II of Gara Mandal inspected the shop of the petitioner bearing No.0120046 of Segidipeta, H/o Srikurmam Village, Gara Mandal, Srikakulam District and seized the stocks available in the shop under a cover of mediatorsnama alleging that there is a shortage of 21.8 Kgs of rice and registered a case under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act. The respondent No.3 has submitted a report to the respondent No.2. Basing on the same, the respondent No.2 issued a show cause notice dated 26.08.2019 framing 12 charges and directed the petitioner to submit her explanation. The petitioner has submitted her explanation on 12.09.2019 denying all the charges. In the explanation, it is clearly stated that the variation of rice is well within the permissible limits. The Inspecting Authority seized the stocks on the ground that the F.P. Shop is being run in unauthorized place. It is also stated in the mediator’s report that the particulars of the commodities are not entered on the board. But surprisingly the respondent No.2 framed 12 charges leveling all violations enumerated under Clause 10 and 12 of the Control Order, 2018. There are no allegations in the mediatorsnama such as non-opening of FP shop during the distribution days, non-issue of receipts, using of unauthorized measuring units, giving money without distributing PDS commodities and retaining the commodities, denial of supply of scheduled commodities to the card holders, selling the commodities over and above the rates fixed by the Government, taking part in any political activity etc..

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.2 for the reasons best known to him framed 12 charges which are not found in the mediatorsnama. The petitioner submitted explanation as charge wise denying all the charges as she is not contravened any of the provisions of the Control Order. Learned counsel further submitted that as per the release Order, the PDS rice supplied to the shop of the petitioner for the month of August, 2019 is 78.37 Qtls (7,837 Kgs), whereas the sale took place up to the date of inspection is 54.94 Qtls ( 5,494 Kgs). The permissible variation is 1.5% which comes to 82.41 Kgs on months sales, whereas the variation found is 21.8 Kgs. As such, the learned counsel contends that the alleged shortage of rice is within the permissible limits.

6. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent No.2 without considering the explanation and without conducting any enquiry, cancelled the authorization of the petitioner stating that the explanation was not at all satisfactory. The respondent No.2, without application of mind, passed the impugned Order mechanically with predetermined mi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top