APHC010216272021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 12440/2021 Between: 1. SURA LAKSHMI DEVI, W/O S.JANARDHAN REDDY, AGED ABOUT 34YEARS FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, SHOP NO. 1111008BOVILLAVARIPALLI VILLAGE, BADVEL MANDALYSR KADAPA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KADAPA,YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, KADAPA,YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, BADVEL MANDAL,BADVEL, YSR KADAPA 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 to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of mandamus declaring the orders in REF.No.I((3)/179/2020 dated 7.6.2021 passed by the 2nd respondent hereion in confirming the orders in REF.No.I(4)/563/2019 datede 10.03.2020 by the 3rd respondent herein illegal, arbitrary,violation of principles of natural justice and violations of Article 14, 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the Andhra Preadesh state Public 2 VS,J W.P.No.12440 of 2021 Distribution System and consequently direct respondents set aside the same and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 continue the petitioner as a fair price shop dealer by suspending the orders in REF.No.g(3)/179/2020 dated 7.6.2021 passed by the 2nd respondent hereion in confirming the orders in REF.No.I(4)/563/2019 datede 10.03.2020 by the 3rd respondent herein, pending disposal of the main writ petition, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P NARASIMHULU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.12440 of 2021 ORDER: The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “….to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of mandamus declaring the orders in REF.No.I((3)/179/2020 dated 7.6.2021 passed by the 2nd respondent herein in confirming the orders in REF.No.I(4)/563/2019 dated 10.03.2020 by the 3rd respondent herein illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice and violations of Article 14, 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the Andhra Pradesh state Public Distribution System and consequently direct respondents set aside the same and pass….” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein was appointed as a fair price shop dealer of shop No.1111008 of Bovillavaripalli village, Badvel mandal, YSR Kadapa district in the year 2012 and the same is being renewed from time to time. Ever since the date of her appointment, the petitioner has been distributing essential commodities to the cardholders, without there being any complaint from whomsoever concerned. 3. While the matter stood thus, the inspecting officials have inspected the petitioner’s fair price shop on 05.07.2019 and found certain irregularities on the part of the petitioner in maintaining the ground stock. As such, the entire stock was seized under the cover of a panchanama and subsequently, a report was submitted by the Tahisldar, Badvel on 06.07.2019, basing on which, the 3rd respondent suspended the petitioner’s authorization pending enquiry, vide proceedings dated 11.07.2019. Challenging the suspension 4 VS,J W.P.No.12440 of 2021 order dated 11.07.2019, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.13010 of 2019 which was allowed on 12.09.2019, as under: “9. Following the decision rendered by this Court in the writ petition referred above, the impugned order dated 11.07.2019 suspending the petitioner’s authorization pending finalization of 6A case is set aside. The Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. 10. The 2nd respondent is directed to complete the enquiry and pass final order on the show cause notice dated 11.07.2019 issued by him without waiting for disposal of the proceedings under Section 6A of the Act. 11. The 2nd respondent is also directed to supply essential commodities to the petitioner till completion of the enquiry in this matter as directed above.” 4. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent, vide order in case No.1(F)/563/2019, dated 10.03.2020 cancelled the petitioner’s authorization which was challenged by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent by way of an appeal on 28.03.2020, wherein the petitioner has also filed a stay application. As the said application was not considered by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner was constrained to file W.P.No.8558 of 2020 seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent for disposal of the stay application, wherein, this Court initially passed an interim order on 13.05.2020 directing the respondent authorities to continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer of the subject shop and subsequently, on 24.02.2021, the said writ petition was disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to dispose of the stay petition in the appeal filed by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible. 5 VS,J W.P.No.12440 of 2021 5. Pursuant to the aforesaid orders passed by this Court, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order dated 07.06.2021 confirming the order passed by the 3rd respondent on 10.03.2020, whereby, the petitioner’s authorization was cancelled. Challenging the order dated 07.06.2021 passed by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner filed the present petition. 6. The 2nd respondent filed a detailed counter duly reiterating the facts as narrated above and further stated that pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.13010 of 2019 on 12.09.2019, the 3rd respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 11.07.2019 and has conducted an enquiry against the charges framed against the petitioner, by duly seeking an explanation from the petitioner. After considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the 3rd respondent came to a conclusion that the petitioner has violated Clause 21(c) of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018. As such, the 3rd respondent cancelled the petitioner’s authorization of the fair price shop vide orders dated 10.03.2020. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that as the 3rd respondent has cancelled the petitioner’s authorization after duly conducting an enquiry and by following the procedure stipulated in the Control Order, 2018, the 2nd respondent has not interfered with the same and has confirmed the cancellation order passed by the 3rd respondent, by way of the impugned order dated 07.06.2021. It is further stated that if at all the petitioner has any grievance with the order passed by the 2nd respondent, a revision petition 6 VS,J W.P.No.12440 of 2021 could be filed before the Civil Supplies Commissioner as per clause 24(e) of the Control Order, 2018. Hence, requested to dismiss the writ petition. 7. Heard Sri. Narasimhulu Parise, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. Perused the entire material available on record. 8. On a perusal of the material available on record, it can be observed that on 05.07.2019, the inspecting officials have inspected the petitioner’s fair price shop and found variation of (+)437.2 kilograms of rice, (-)20 kilograms of RG Dal and (-)0.5 liters of palm oil when compared with the ground stock available. As such, the 4th respondent submitted a report to the 3rd respondent recommending to initiate further course of action against the petitioner, basing on which, the 3rd respondent vide proceedings dated 11.07.2019 suspended the petitioner’s authorization which were subsequently set aside by this Court in W.P.No.13010 of 2019 (referred supra) with a direction to the 3rd respondent to conduct an enquiry on the charges framed against the petitioner. 9. In compliance to the said direction, the 3rd respondent conducted a detailed enquiry and sought an explanation from the petitioner and on 22.02.2020 the petitioner submitted her explanation stating that she is running the subject fair price shop without any complaints from anyone and that due to network problem, some of the cardholders and MDM agencies submitted their biometrics/fingerprints without drawing commodities with an intention to collect them some other time as per their convenience. Considering the same, the 3rd 7 VS,J W.P.No.12440 of 2021 respondent, vide proceedings dated 10.03.2020 cancelled the petitioner’s authorization by observing as under: “…The Respondent herein should not allow the cardholders to keep the stocks in the F.P.Shop as per rule of law. But, the Respondent herein allowed to keep the stocks in the F.P.Shop is objectionable a and punishable as per the Control (Order) 2018. Further the Respondent herein failed to maintain the correct accounts/records and she resorted to commit the irregularities. As such the Respondent should not been allowed the stocks of essential commodities for which drawn by the cardholders in the F.P. Shop. As seen from the variation in stocks noticed and reported by the Inspecting officials, the variations are grave in nature as they are the essential commodities which are highly subsidized and meant for distribution to the below poverty families….” 10. Even in the appeal filed by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent, the petitioner submitted a similar explanation stating that the excess stock found during the inspection belongs to the cardholders who left their stocks in order to collect them at a time convenient to them. Admittedly, the said explanation is without putting forward any piece of evidence in support of the petitioner’s case; the petitioner has barely submitted her explanation as referred supra even without referring to the names of the cardholders who have left their essential commodities in the petitioner’s fair price shop . Furthermore, the said act of the petitioner withholding the commodities after taking authentication/biometrics of the beneficiaries through e-PoS machine is contrary to Clause 12(e) of the Control Order, 2018, which reads as under: “12(e) – The fair price shop dealers shall not retain the scheduled commodities after taking 8 VS,J W.P.No.12440 of 2021 authentication of the beneficiaries through electronic Point of Sale.” 11. In view of the fact that the petitioner had admittedly violated Clause 12(e) of the Control Order, 2018 and as the explanation submitted by the petitioner is very vague, this Court is of the opinion that the respondent No.2 has not committed any error in issuing the impugned order dated 07.06.2021 confirming the cancellation orders passed by the 3rd respondent on 10.03.2020. Even otherwise, the variation of stock found by the inspecting officials at the petitioner’s fair price shop is beyond the permissible limit of 1.5% as per Clause 29(a) of the Control Order, 2018. As such, the impugned order dated 07.06.2021 need not be interfered with and this Court is of the opinion that this writ petition lack merits. 12. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 18.11.2025 Gss