APHC010604142023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 31168/2023 Between: 1. SHAIK FAKRUMA, AGE 47 YEARS, F.P.SHOP DEALER, SHOP NO. 1212017, VANKARAJUKALVA VILLAGE, PAMIDI MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT -515775 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLY DEPARTMENT, SECRETERIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE JOINTCOLLECTOR AND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ANANTAPUR. ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ANANTAPURAMU, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, , PAMIDI MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent passed the orders in appeal under RC.No.K6/221/2022, dated, 13-09-2023, confirming the orders of the 3 respondent vide Rc.NO..Dics 1295/2021 dated, 08-11- 2021, confirming the cancellation of the F.P.shop dealership with reference to shop No.1212017 of Vankaraju kalva village, Pamidi Mandal, Anantapur 2 VS,J W.P.No.31168 of 2023 District is illegal, arbitrary and against law and consequently to set aside the cancellation order passed by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.NO.Dics 1295/2021 dated, 08-11-2021, and order by the 2nd respondent in RC.No.K6/221/2022, dated, 13-09-2023, and to restore the Dealership of F.P. Shop No. 1212017 in favour of petitioner forthwith and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the respondent to restore the Dealership of F.P. Shop No. 1212017 of Vankaraju Kalva village, Pamidi Mandal, Anantapur District in favour of petitioner suspending the orders passed by 2rd respondent in appeal under RC.No.K6/221/2022, dated, 13-09-2023, confirming the orders of the 3rd respondent vide Rc.NO..Dics 1295/2021 dated, 08-11-2021 pending disposal of the 'writ petition,and Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. INENI VENKATA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.31168 of 2023 ORDER: The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “….to issue any writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent passed the orders in appeal under RC.No.K6/221/2022, dated 13.09.2023, confirming the orders of the 3rd respondent vide Rc.No.Dics 1295/2021 dated 08.11.2021, confirming the cancellation of the F.P. shop dealership with reference to shop No.1212017 of Vankaraju kalva village, Pamidi Mandal, Anantapur District is illegal, arbitrary and against law and consequently to set aside the cancellation order passed by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.No. Dics 1295/2021 dated 08.11.2021, and order by the 2nd respondent in RC.No.K6/221/2022, dated 13.09.2023, and to restore the Dealership of F.P. Shop No.1212017 in favour of petitioner forthwith….” 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Fair Shop Dealer in the year 1995. Since the date of her appointment, the petitioner has been distributing essential commodities to the cardholders without any complaint either from the cardholders or the concerned authorities. 3. While the matter being so, due to political pressure and without there being any complaint from any cardholder, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 11.06.2020, framing charges against her and also calling for an explanation within seven (7) days from the date of receipt of the said notice, for which, the petitioner has submitted her explanation. After duly considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the 3rd respondent has passed final orders on 08.11.2021, cancelling the petitioner’s 4 VS,J W.P.No.31168 of 2023 authorization, which was further confirmed in the appeal before the 2nd respondent by order dated 13.09.2023. Challenging which, the present writ petition has been filed on the grounds that, on the date of the alleged inspection, the petitioner was out of town and that the petitioner was not served with a copy of the panchanama and also that the variation in PMGKAY rice, which is shown as 3.28% is incorrect and the said variation is within the permissible limits. Accordingly, the petitioner contends that she has not violated any of the clauses of the APSTPDS (Control) Order 2018. 4. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter duly stating that on receipt of credible information, the revenue officials of Pamidi Mandal secured the mediators and inspected the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop on 08.06.2020 at about 9.30 a.m. At the time of inspection, the Fair Price Shop dealer was not present, and instead of her, her husband was present in the said shop. The inspecting officials verified the ePOS online reports with regard to ground balances and certain variations. Basing on the report of the Tahsildar, Pamidi Mandal, the Joint Collector, Ananthapuram has issued a Suspension cum Show-Cause notice to the petitioner duly framing charges pending enquiry and also directed the petitioner to submit her explanation within seven (7) days from the date of receipt of a copy of the said notice dated 11.06.2020. It is further stated that as per G.O.Ms.No.11, Consumer Affairs, F&CS (CS-I), Department, dated 09.09.2020, all the disciplinary case files have been transferred to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapuram for taking further action in the disciplinary cases from the Joint-Collector. 5 VS,J W.P.No.31168 of 2023 5. In the meanwhile, the petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court by filing W.P.No.13787 of 2020, and the said writ petition was disposed of on 09.09.2020, directing the appropriate authority to complete the enquiry after receipt of the explanation from the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As per the directions of this Hon’ble Court, the 3rd respondent has issued a notice to the petitioner on 25.09.2021, 18.10.2021 as well as on 26.10.2021, calling the petitioner for enquiry. In pursuance of the said notices, the petitioner’s advocate filed an explanation before the 3rd respondent on 30.10.2021. After receiving the petitioner’s explanation and perusal of the material available on record, the 3rd respondent cancelled the petitioner’s authorization as per the provisions under Clause 21 (c) of APSTPDS (Control) Orders, 2018 by orders dated 08.11.2021. 6. Challenging which, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent herein. During the course of hearing, the petitioner’s advocate has filed written arguments on the date of hearing on 29.04.2023. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent basing on the report of the Tahsildar, Pamidi Mandal, Panchanama and the written arguments submitted by the petitioner’s advocate as well as connected records, found that there was a shortage of 162.975 kgs of PMGKAY rice, which is 3.28%, shortage of 0.795 kgs of Chana Whole, which is 1.93%, shortage of 4.50 kgs of RG Dal, which is 1.45% and 0.240 kgs of sugar, which is 1.17%. 6 VS,J W.P.No.31168 of 2023 7. It is further stated that as per Clause 29(a) of APSTPDS (Cotrol) Order, 2018, minor variation in respect of a single commodity up to 1.5% may be allowed taking into consideration transactions of one month. In the present case, as the variation in the shortages of 3.28% of PMGKAY rice and 1.93% of Chana whole are beyond the permissible limit as per the above clause and also considering other irregularities committed by the petitioner, that the petitioner has not displayed the prices of essential commodities on the notice boards at the Fair Price Shop and has failed to maintain scheduled commodities physically as per the balances shown in the ePOS online reports, which fact establishes that the stocks were diverted into the black market for doing clandestine business for the petitioner’s pecuniary gains by contravening the Clauses 12P(3), 25(d) and 12(n) of APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018, as such, the 2nd respondent passed orders on 13.09.2023 confirming the orders passed by the 3rd respondent. Therefore, prays to dismiss the writ petition. 8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for respondents. 9. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, on the date of the said inspection, the petitioner was not in the station, and that a copy of the panchanama was not served on the petitioner. It was also contended that the variations in stock were within the permissible limits, as the stocks were weighed along with the gunny bags. Further, it was 7 VS,J W.P.No.31168 of 2023 argued that, there was no such variation alleged by the respondents. However, none of these grounds were raised in the explanation submitted by the petitioner either before the 3rd respondent or before the 2nd respondent herein. During the course of inspection, the variations found by the officers as under: Sl. No Commodity (as per stock issued register epos) O.B in Kgs Receipt s in Kgs Total in Kgs Sales in Kgs CBs as per eopos in Kgs Physical balance in Kgs Differenc e in Kgs Variatio n % on sales 1 PDS rice 417.975 0 417.975 00 417.975 417.975 0 0 2 PMGKY Rice 215.000 5195.00 5410.00 4965.00 445.000 282.025 (-) 162.975 3.28% 3 Red Gram Dal 128 224 352 309 43 38.50 (-) 4.50 1.45% 4 Chenna Whole 41 00 41 00 41 40.205 (-) 0.795 1.93% 5 Sugar 20.340 0 20.430 0 20.430 20.190 (-) 0.240 1.17% 10. As per the above table, it can be seen that there is a variation in shortages of 162.975 kgs of PMGKY Rice, which comes to 3.28%, and a shortage of 0.795 kgs of Chenna Whole, which comes to 1.96%, which admittedly is contrary to Clause 29(a) of APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018, as the permissible limit is only up to 1.5% in respect of a single commodity. As per the counter, it can also be seen that at the time of the inspection, the petitioner’s husband was present in the said shop and that a copy of the panchanama report was furnished to him, but he refused to sign on the said report. As such, the question of non-furnishing of the panchanama copy to the petitioner does not arise. The petitioner has failed to provide a proper explanation to the charges framed against her, and all the charges have been 8 VS,J W.P.No.31168 of 2023 duly proved beyond reasonable doubt by the respondents. Consequently, the respondents have rightly passed the final orders. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date :19.08.2025. KGR