Suspension of dealership authorization under the Essential Commodities Act requires a fair enquiry and substantiation of charges by the appointing authority.

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer:

“…to issue a writ order or orders more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.3 in suspending the dealership Authorization of the petitioner, through proceedings Rc.No.1/3451/2024, dated 16.12.2024, in respect of the Fair Price Shop No.085043 of Ommevaram Village, Naguluppalapadu mandal, Prakasam District, as illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice and violation of Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently to set aside the proceedings Rc.No.1/3451/2024, dated 16.12.2024, in respect of the Fair Price Shop No.085043 of Ommevaram Village, Naguluppalapadu mandal, Prakasam District, issued by the 3rd respondent, by directing the respondents No.3 to 5 to supply the commodities to the petitioner, in respect of the Fair Price Shop No.085043 of Ommevaram Village, Naguluppapadu Mandal, Prakasam Distarict and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

2. Heard Sri Madhava Rao Nalluri, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents.

3. The case of the petitioner is as follows:

The petitioner is a dealer of Fair Price Shop No.085043 of Ommevaram village, Naguluppulapadu Mandal, Prakasam District. On 09.11.2024, basing on a false complaint, the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Ongole, inspected the shop of the petitioner and found some variations in the stock by preparing panchanama with incorrect recitals. The petitioner paid challan for Rs.21,000/- for release of the stock for the month of December, 2024 and met the 4th and 5th respondents. But, they did not respond. The 4th respondent informed the petitioner that the commodities for the month of December, 2024 would be supplied through the Village Revenue Officer as the 3rd respondent is going to initiate proceedings against the petitioner under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Though the authorization of the petitioner is in force, the respondents No.4 & 5 are trying to avoid supply of commodities to the petitioner. So long as the authorization is in force, the petitioner is entitled to distribute commodities to the cardholders. When the authorities failed to supply commodities to the petitioner, the petitioner filed W.P.No.27748 of 2024 before this Court. Pending the said writ petition, the impugned order suspending the authorization of the petitioner was passed. The 3rd respondent issued a show-cause notice, dated 24.11.2024, directing the petitioner to submit explanation regarding the alleged irregularities. The petitioner submitted explanation dated 02.12.2024. Without considering the explanation, the 3rd respondent passed the impugned order on 16.12.2024 suspending the dealership of the petitioner. In fact, notice was received by the petitioner on 24.11.2024 and the explanation was submitted on 02.12.2024, since 01.12.2024 a public holiday being Sunday. Therefore, the explanation was submitted within time. As such, passing the impugned order on 16.12.2024 as though the petitioner had not submitted explanation is illegal. Hence, this writ petition is filed.

4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies placed on record the written instructions of the 3rd respondent vide Rc.I/3451/2024, dated Nil/12/2024.

5. As per the written instructions and the show cause notice, the variation in the stock is as follows:

6. A perusal of the explanation submitted by the petitioner