Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
B.S.BHANUMATHI, J
K. Naga Bhuvaneswari – Appellant
Versus
State Of A.P. and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No.18699 of 2018
Decided on : 02-08-2024
Writ - Fair Price Shop Authorization - APSPDS Control Order, 2008 - Sections 6A of E.C. Act, 1955 - The court found that the cancellation of the petitioner's authorization was arbitrary and violated principles of natural justice, as no independent inquiry was conducted.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a fair price shop dealer, faced cancellation of her authorization due to alleged stock irregularities. Inspections revealed variations in stock records, leading to disciplinary actions and appeals against the cancellation.
Finding of the Court:
The court concluded that the inquiry conducted was flawed, lacking an independent assessment and proper opportunity for the petitioner to defend herself, thus rendering the cancellation of authorization invalid.
Issues: Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's fair price shop authorization was arbitrary and violated principles of natural justice due to lack of a proper inquiry.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that an inquiry must provide an opportunity for the dealer to present their case, and mere reliance on subordinate reports without independent verification is insufficient for valid disciplinary action.
Result: The writ petition is allowed, and the cancellation of the petitioner's authorization is set aside.
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 4th respondent in cancelling the authorization of the petitioner vide proceedings in Rc.No.5995/2015-L, dated 18.07.2016 as confirmed by the 3rd respondent in A.C.D.Dis No.22/2016-S7 dated 17.06.2017 and the orders of the second respondent in Revision Case No.2/2017-S7, dated 25.04.2018 is arbitrary, illegal, contrary to law and to pass such other orders.
2. The facts led to filing of the petition are as follows:
The petitioner was appointed as fair price shop dealer of Shop No.29, Dammalapadu village, Muppalla Mandal, Guntur District and since the date of appointment, she distributed the essential commodities regularly. On 11.06.2015, the shop of the petitioner was inspected and the authorities stated that the following variations were found in the stock.
| Sl. No . | Commoddity | O.B. | Receipts | Total | Salts | Book Balance | Ground Stock s | Variations | Variation percentage |
| 1 | PDS Rice | 0.15 | 44.70 | 44.85 | 43.65 | 1.20 | 1.00 | (1) 0.20 |
|
| 2 | AAY Rice | -- | 7.70 | 7.70 | 7.70 | -- | -- | NIL |
|
|
| Total | 0.15 | 52.40 | 52.55 | 51.35 | 1.20 | 1.00 | (-) 0.20 | 0.39% |
| 3 | Sugar | 0.01 | 1.66 | 1.67 | 1.63 | 0.04 | 0.05 | (+)0.01 | 0.61% |
| 4 | K.Oil (in lts.) | -- | 237 | 237 | 237 | -- | 10 | (+) 10 | 4.22% |
The following irregularities in the maintenance of the FP shop were found:-
1) Not maintained the records properly which lead to variations in stocks. Thus, she violated Cl.22(viii) of APSPDS (Control) Order, 2008.
2) The F.P.shop dealer has not maintained the dates and timings of the F.P.shop, as prescribed by the Government. Thus, she violated Cl.22(vii) of APSPDS (Control) Order, 2008.
3) The F.P. shop dealer has not maintained the stock-cum-price board properly. Thus, she violated Cl.22(v) of APSPDS (Control) Order, 2008.
Hence, the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Muppalla seized the stocks and handed over them to the Village Revenue Officer, Dammalapadu village. The Tahsildar, Muppalla filed a report under Section 6A of E.C.Act, 1955 before the Joint Collector, Guntur and requested to confiscate the entire seized stock to the Government and also informed to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur to initiate necessary disciplinary action against the dealer. Accordingly, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur issued a show cause notice to the dealer vide Rc.No.5995/2015 dated 01.07.2015 calling for explanation for the following charges:
Charge No.1: That the F.P.shop dealer has failed to maintain the records properly which lead 20 kgs shortage in Rice, 1 Kg excess in sugar and 10 lts. Excess in K.Oil stocks. Thus, she violated Cl.22(viii) of APSPDS (Control) Order, 2008.
Charge No.2: The variations found in the stocks discloses that the dealer has not maintained the records properly. Thus, she violated Cl.22(viii) of APSPDS (Control) Order, 2008.
Charge No.3: The F.P.shop dealer has not maintained the dates and timings of the F.P.shop, as prescribed by the Government. Thus, she violated Cl.22(vii) of APSPDS (Control) Order, 2008.
Charge No.4: That the F.P.shop dealer has not maintained the stock-cum-price board properly. Thus, she violated Cl.22(v) of APSPDS (Control) Order, 2008. So, the petitioner submitted explanation on 07.07.2015. At that juncture, the petitioner filed a W.P.No.18386 of 2015 before this High Court at Hyderabad which was disposed of on 13.07.2015 directing the Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur and the Tahsildar/R-5 Muppalla to release the stocks to the dealer as the authorization was in force. Accordingly, the stock was released. The RDO/R-4, Guntur heard the petitioner on 06.01.2016 on submission of written explanation. Again on 16.07.2016, the petitioner was heard stating that the written explanation submitted on 06.01.2016 holds good. Then, the RDO, Guntur held that the charges against the petitioner were proved and cancelle
The court established that fair price shop dealers must be afforded a proper inquiry and opportunity to defend against charges before cancellation of their authorization.
The court established that fair price shop dealers must be afforded a proper inquiry and opportunity to be heard before any cancellation of authorization can occur.
The cancellation of a Fair Price Shop dealer's authorization must follow due process, including a fair inquiry and provision of reasons, as mandated by the Control Order, 2018.
Suspension of fair price shop authorization requires adherence to principles of natural justice, including proper enquiry and reasoned decisions.
Absence of reasoning as to the mandatory requirement of provision which conferred jurisdiction on the quasi judicial authority or a Court or administrative authority is mandatory. In the absence of r....
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, suspen....
Public distribution system – Cancellation of licence - Cancellation of Absence of reasoning as to the mandatory requirement of provision which conferred jurisdiction on the quasi judicial authority o....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
