APHC010601302024 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: 31350/2024 Between: M. Narasimha Raju ...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/1007/2024, 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) Order, 2018 and contrary to the well established legal principles apart from 2 BSB, J W.P.No.31350 of 2024 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.1136025. Since then, he has been distributing the commodities. While so, the petitioner was served a show cause notice vide Ref No.C/1007/2024, dated 26.11.2024 calling for his explanation. 3. The petitioner was directed to submit his explanation on or before 27.11.2024. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 27.11.2024 denying the charges and requesting to continue him 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., Sri M. Narasimha Raju, but he did not submitted authorization for his FP Shop. 2. Further, the F.P. Shop No.1136025 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. The card holders deposed that for the last 6 months one Sri M. Narasimha Raju F.P.Shop dealer of F.P.Shop No.1136025 stating that the dealer and MDU Operator 4 have colluded with each other and distributing the essential commodities FP Shop. 3 BSB, J W.P.No.31350 of 2024 5. 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. 6. The FP Shop dealer distributing the rice less quality as 8 Kgs instead of 10 Kgs, 13 Kgs instead of 13 Kgs, 17 Kgs instead of 20 Kgs, 20 Kgs instead of 25 Kgs. 7. 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 he is working as Sakshi Reporter for the last 15 years. 4. Further, the Enforcement Deputy Tahisldar, Lakkireddipalli Mandal have reported that the ground balance of Sugar-15 ½ Kgs, Dal-43 Kgs and Ragi Powder-19 Kgs tallied with the online report. On enquiry the F.P Shop dealer denied all the allegations leveled against him. The F.P. Shop dealer has been working as Sakshi Reporter for 10 years. 5. The Tahsildar, Lakkireddipalli Mandal has requested to take suitable disciplinary action against the F.P.Shop dealer for the above lapses in the public distribution system. 6. Aggrieved by the impugned order, this writ petition is filed. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the ground on which impugned order had been passed isfrivolous and that no panchanama was conducted, yet the impugned order had been passed merely to deny the dealership. He further submitted that though there was no charge that the petitioner had changed the place of the shop from the address for which authorization was given, in the impugned proceedings, the same was 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. 4 BSB, J W.P.No.31350 of 2024 8. The learned Assistant Government Pleader placed on record written instructions of the 3rd respondent dated 30.12.2024 which reiterate the contents of the impugned order. 9. The following charges are made against the petitioner: 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 ½ 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(l) & 12(j) of the A.P.S.T.P.D.S (Control) Order, 2018. Charge No.5:- That the FP Shop dealer is working as Sakshi reporter from the last 10 years, thus it is clearly established that, the FP Shop dealer has violated the A.P.S.T.P.D.S (Control) Order, 2018. 10. Regarding the charge No.1, in the impugned order, it was mentioned that either in the explanation or during inspection, the dealer had 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 5 BSB, J W.P.No.31350 of 2024 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. 11. 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. 12. 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.31350 of 2024 205 THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 31350 of 2024 Date: 10.01.2025 KMS