IMPORTANT POINT
Indefinite suspension of a fair price shop dealer without a concluded inquiry violates natural justice and statutory provisions.

ORDER :

The Writ Petition is filed seeking the following prayer:

“……..to issue an order or orders or a direction or a writ more in the nature of writ of mandamus by declaring the order Ref. No.1(4)/1322/2019 dated 12.11.2019 issued by the 3rd respondent suspending the authorization/ dealership of the petitioner’s FP shop No.1115122, Vivek Nagar, Kothapalli post, Proddutur Mandal, YSR Kadapa District without concluding the enquiry and mentioning the period of suspension is as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to the law laid down by this Hon’ble Court and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer for shop No.1115122, Vivek Nagar, Proddutur Mandal, by setting aside the order dated 12.11.2019 and to pass such other order or orders……”

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the 1st respondent.

3. The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows:

a. The petitioner was appointed as a fair shop dealer on permanent basis for Shop No. 111512, Vivek Nagar, Proddatur Mandal, by the 4th respondent on 03.02.2009, vide proceedings Ref. No. B/1587/2008, and she operated the shop without any complaints. The petitioner filed an application for the renewal of the license for the period 2019-2021 by paying the requisite fee through challan No. 39247, dated 22.03.2018. On 19.10.2019, the 6th respondent visited the fair shop of the petitioner along with the VRA and VRO and asked the petitioner to sign a blank white paper, stating that it was an acknowledgment of their visit. However, on 21.10.2019, when the petitioner went to the 5th respondent along with a demand draft for the indent for the next month, the 5th respondent refused to accept it stating that the petitioner had to hand over the stocks to the staff of the 5th respondent.

b. It appears that the 5th respondent had forwarded a report to the 3rd respondent on 20.10.2019 by filling the blank signed white paper. The petitioner received orders, vide Ref. No. 1(4)/1322/ 2019, dated 12.11.2019, suspending the dealership of the petitioner until the completion of the disciplinary case, without specifying a period of suspension. Despite lapse of five years since the date of suspension, the authorities have not concluded the enquiry and have continued the distribution of commodities through the VRO against the law.

4. This court had directed the authorities to conclude the enquiry within a reasonable period of 90 days, but they did not follow the dictum of the Court. In a writ petition filed by the petitioner in W.P. No. 12242 of 2021, the High Court directed all the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within 90 days. However, no action has been taken till date. According to Clause 20(i) of the Control Order 2018, two reports are required for disciplinary action, as observed by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 500 of 2020. In the present case, the suspension order dated 12.11.2019 refers to only one report, making the order contrary to the provisions mentioned above. Moreover, the suspension order cannot be extended for a period beyond 90 days, irrespective of filing the appeal over the suspension order. Under these circumstances, having no alternative and effective remedy, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

5. On written instructions, vide Reference No. A/308/2024, dated 01.08.2024, of the Tahsildar (FAC), Proddatur Mandal, the learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that on 19.10.2019, when the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar of Proddatur, along with the Food Inspector, visited the petitioner’s shop. They found the following variations in the stock: