THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI W.P.NO. 21860 OF 2017

ORDER:

In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the orders passed by the respondent No.2 dated 20.06.2017 directing the respondent No.3 to remove the authorization of the petitioner’s fair price shop dealership and upon which the respondent No.3 has issued orders dated 28.06.2017 straightaway removing the authorization of the petitioner’s fair price shop No.41, Dubbak Village and Mandal of Siddipet District, without issuing any notice to the petitioner and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently to direct the respondents No.2 to 4 to continue the supply of the commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop and to pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a fair price shop dealer in the year 1984 and has been running the said fair price shop without any complaint from any cardholder. It is stated that the petitioner is the only bread earner of the family. It is stated that the respondent No.5, who is a working as a reporter in the petitioner’s village and has a habit of extracting money from fair price shop dealers and other businessmen by blackmailing them, has developed a personal grudge against the petitioner and her husband and has started harassing her and under the influence and pressure of respondent No.5, the respondent No.3 on 24.12.2016, issued a show cause notice leveling three charges against her i.e., (i) the petitioner has not been distributing the commodities to the cardholders properly; and (ii) she has not been maintaining the stock register and distribution register properly; and (iii) thus, violated the State Public Distribution Control Order of 2008 requiring the petitioner to submit her explanation within seven days from the date of receipt of the said notice. The petitioner claims to have submitted a detailed explanation on 02.01.2017 stating that the charges levelled against her are false and fabricated and requested to drop the proceedings. However, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide proceedings No.B/7013/2016, dated 09.01.2017. It is stated that thereafter, the respondent No.3 conducted an inquiry and could not find any illegalities or irregularities committed by the petitioner and hence revoked the suspension order and vide Proceedings No.B/7013/2016, dated 28.02.2017 imposed a penalty of Rs.1,000/-. It is submitted that the petitioner paid the penalty and said order has thus become final. But subsequent thereto, on 20.06.2017, under the pressure and influence of respondent No.5, respondent No.2 has addressed a letter to the respondent No.3 stating that the education certificate submitted by the petitioner was a fabricated one and that the petitioner has misguided the appointing authority to get the fair price shop dealership in the year 1984. The respondent No.2 therefore instructed the respondent No.3 to take necessary action for removal of her dealership. It is stated that the removal of her dealership appears to have been issued upon a case initiated before the A.P.Human Rights Commission Case No.903 of 2017. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No.3 has not looked into the record pertaining to the awarding of authorization in her favour and that already a similar complaint was filed against her, which got concluded and therefore, the respondents could not have re-opened the case and could not have passed the order of cancellation of authorization without issuing any notice to the petitioner. Therefore, according to the petitioner, it is in clear violation of principles of natural justice.

3. When the matter came up for admission, on

07.07.2017, this Court had granted interim suspension of the impugned order in W.P.M.P.No.26901 of 2017, which is