APHC010601292024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] FRIDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 31370/2024 Between: M Lakshmi Rajyam ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PAPUDIPPU SASHIDAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is filed for the following relief: “… to issue an appropriate Writ Order or direction under Article 226 of constitution of India more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order in proceedings vide Ref.No.C/1005/2024, dated 18.12.2024 issued by the Respondent No.3 as arbitrary, and illegal contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Orders, 2018 2 BSB, J W.P.No.31370 of 2024 and contrary to the well established legal principles apart from being violative of the fundamental and Constitutional rights guaranteed to me under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same…” 2. The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows: The petitioner was appointed as a dealer of fair price shop No.1136011 vide authorization No.209/2011, Lr.No.C/810/2012, dated 09.03.2012 and since then, she has been distributing the commodities. While so, the petitioner was served a show case notice vide ref No.C/1005/2024, dated 26.11.2024 calling for her explanation on the following charges: Charge No.1:- The F.P.Shop dealer is not produced valid authorization thus, it is clearly established that, the FP Shop dealer has violated the control order rule No.8(11 (c)) of A.P.S.T.P.D.S (Control) Order, 2018. Charge No.2:- The F.P.Shop dealer has not maintained stock board/price board, door number in the fair price shop. It is clearly established that, the FP Shop dealer has violated the clause 12(n) of the A.P.S.T.P.D.S (Control) Order, 2018. Charge No.3:- The card holders have stated that, last 6 months, the F.P Shop dealer & MDU Operator 4 have colluded and not distributing commodities to the card holders. Charge No.4:- The F.P.Shop dealer is collecting higher rates to distributing of essential commodities at Rs.20 per Kg of Sugar & Rs.80 per 1 Kg Dal & further, the F.P. Shop dealer is distributing less quantity of essential commodities to the card holders, thus it is clearly established that, the F.P. Shop dealer has violated the clause 12(1) & 12(j) of the A.P.S.T.P.D.S (Control) Order, 2018. 3 BSB, J W.P.No.31370 of 2024 Charge No.5:- That the FP Shop dealer (her brother-in-law) is working as Tarunam Reporter long back, thus it is clearly established that, the FP Shop dealer has violated the A.P.S.T.P.D.S (Control) Order, 2018. 3. The petitioner was directed to submit her explanation on or before 27.11.2024. The petitioner submitted her explanation on 27.11.2024 denying the charges and requesting to continue her as the dealer. On 18.12.2024, RDO, Rayachoti/3rd respondent passed the impugned order suspending the dealership of the petitioner pending enquiry observing that based on the report of the Tahsildar, Lakkireddipalle Mandal, a prima facie case was established that the dealer had committed grave irregularities in the maintenance of the commodities due to shortage in the quantity and in collecting higher prices. The order speaks that the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar reported as follows:- 1. The F.P. Shop was running by the permanent F.P.Shop Dealer i.e., Smt. M. Lakshmi Rajyam, W/o Vijaya Bhaskar and the F.P.Shop Authorization valid up to 2016. 2. Further, the F.P. Shop No.1136011 is not mentioned Door Number and address. 3. Further, it is noticed that, the F.P.Shop store does mentioned essential commodities table prices list. 4. During enquiry, as per authorization mentioned D.No.3/375 of Lakkireddipalli Village, but current door number s different. 5. The F.P.Shop dealer is running by her brother-in-law i.e., M. Deva Sahayam. He is working as Tarunam Press reporter at Lakkireddipalli Mandal since long back. 6. The card holders deposed that for the last 6 months one Smt. M. Lakshmi Rajyam, W/o Vijaya Bhaskar F.P.Shop dealer of F.P.Shop No.1136011 stating that the dealer and MDU Operator 6 have colluded with each other and distributing the essential commodities in F.P Shop. 4 BSB, J W.P.No.31370 of 2024 7. The FP Shop dealer collecting higher rates to distributing of essential commodities at Rs.20 per ½ Kg Sugar and Rs.80 per 1 Kg Dal. 8. The FP Shop dealer distributing the rice less quality as 8 Kgs instead of 10 Kgs, 13 Kgs instead of 15 Kgs, 17 Kgs instead of 25 Kgs, 21 Kgs instead of 25 Kgs. 9. Further, the card holders have deposed that, the questioned about the irregularities, the F.P.Shop dealer and MDU are scolding by using filthy language and her brother-in-law is working as Tarunam Press reporter since long back. The Tahsildar, Lakkireddipalli Mandal has requested that, the suitable disciplinary action may kindly be taken initiate against the F.P.Shop dealer for the above lapses of public distribution system. 4. Aggrieved by the impugned order, this writ petition is filed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the grounds on which impugned order was passed are frivolous and that no panchanama had been conducted, yet the impugned order had been passed merely to keep the dealer away from running the shop. He further submitted that though there was no charge that the petitioner had changed the address of the shop for which authorization had been given, in the impugned, the same had been mentioned. Similarly, he submitted that all the charges are vague and have no proof, yet the impugned order had been passed and therefore the same is illegal. 6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader placed on record written instructions of the 3rd respondent dated 30.12.2024 which are replica of the contents of the impugned order. 5 BSB, J W.P.No.31370 of 2024 7. Regarding the charge No.1, in the impugned order, it was mentioned that either in the explanation or during inspection, the dealer failed to submit any valid authorization. If at all the petitioner had no valid authorization, it is for respondent authorities to answer how the commodities were supplied to the dealer in the last month as well. Therefore, the observation in the impugned order that the explanation of the petitioner is not convincing does not sound good. 8. Similarly, the other charges No.2 and 3 are not the basis for passing the impugned order. It is only the charge No.4 which is found place in the impugned order regarding the sale of commodities at higher price. When this charge is examined, it is not supported by any kind of evidence except the allegation. Therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no orders as to costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. ___________________ ___ JUSTICE B.S. BHANUMATHI Dated 10.01.2025 K M S 6 BSB, J W.P.No.31370 of 2024 204 THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 31370 of 2024 Date: 10.01.2025 KMS 7 BSB, J W.P.No.31370 of 2024