The disciplinary authority must conduct a fair enquiry and consider the dealer's explanation before suspending authorization, in compliance with the relevant provisions of the Control Order, 2018.

ORDER :

This Writ Petition is filed to issue a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondent No.3 in suspending the authorization of the petitioner bearing Rc.No.I/1230/2021 dated 21.07.2021 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Andhra Pradesh State Targetted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 (in short “the Control Order”) and consequently, to set aside the same.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Fair Price Shop Dealer of Shop No.0816035 of China Kothapalli Village, Addanki Mandal, Prakasam District in the year 2012 and he was issued authorization as per the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008. Same was renewed from time to time and renewal was granted upto March, 2020. He has submitted an application along with required challan for renewal of the authorization. When the application is pending for renewal, as per the provisions of the Control Order, 2018, it is deemed to be renewed and subsisting. The petitioner was allowed to lift the essential commodities for the month of July, 2021 also. The petitioner had been distributing the essential commodities to the cardholders since 14 years without any complaint. On 04.07.2021, the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Addanki along with Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Ongole-I and the Village Revenue Officer, China Kothapalli had inspected the petitioner’s shop on 08.07.2021 at about 8.15 P.M in the presence of the mediators and panchanama was also drafted without comparing the physical stock available in the Fair Price Shop with the stock report generated from Adhaar Enabled Public Distribution System (AEPDS) and variations in the stocks were noted. The Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Addanki submitted a report on 05.07.2021 to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole to initiate proceedings under 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and also disciplinary proceedings under the provisions of the Control Order, 2018. Based on the report dated 05.07.2021 of the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Addanki, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 06.07.2021 asking his explanation why his dealership authorization should not be cancelled. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 12.07.2021 explaining the detailed reasons for the variations and denying the charge. The 3rd respondent considering the explanation of the petitioner issued the impugned order dated 21.07.2021 suspending the petitioner’s authorization, pending enquiry. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

3. Smt Kavitha Gottipati, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the 3rd respondent authority having issued show cause notice dated 06.07.2021, petitioner submitting explanation on 12.07.2021, without considering the said explanation in its proper perspective, having prima facie, held that the charge is proved, now passed the impugned suspension order. She would further submit that the impugned suspension order is contrary to the provisions of clause 8 (4) of the Control Order, 2018 as no sort of enquiry was conducted by the 3rd respondent, not even applied his mind to the facts of the case to come to the conclusion that the petitioner shall be kept under suspension as held by this Court in K.Prabhavathi Vs. The State of A.P. 2020(6) ALD 209, wherein it is held that not all follies of a dealer invariably require his suspension pending enquiry and the appointing authority must carefully differentiate between the prima facie case for holding disciplinary enquiry and a compulsory case which requires not only disciplinary enquiry but also suspension pending enquiry. As per the provisions of clause 20 (i) of the Control Order, 2018, the Tahsildar/Inspecting Official has to send separate reports one to the Collector (CS)/Joint Collector to initiate proceedings under the provisions of the 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and another to the Revenue Divisional Office