APHC010245152020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 16116/2020 Between: 1. NANDYALA RAMA USSAININ, FATHER NAME. LATE PEDDA USSAININ, AGE. 34, GORUKALLU VILLAGE, PANYAM MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR CIVIL SUPPLIES, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT 3. THE TAHSILDAR C S, PANYAM MANDAL KURNOOL 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 toto issue an appropriate writ order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, 2 VS,J W.P.NO.16116 OF 2020 declaring the action of the respondents in cancelling the petitioners Authorization as Fair Price Shop Dealer for Shop No. 1331029 of Gorukallu Village, Panyam Mandal, Kurnool District basing on the 6-A report is illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently suspend the proceedings vide Roc. No. CS3/79/2020, dated 29.07.2020 of the 2nd respondent by continuing the petitioner as fair price shop dealer to the F.P. Shop No. 1331029 of Gorukallu Village, Panyam Mandal, Kurnool District and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 to Suspend the proceedings Roc. No. CS3/79/2020, dated 29.07.2020 of the 2nd respondent by supplying the Essential Commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop dealer to the F.P. Shop No. 1331029 of Gorukallu Village, Panyam Mandal, Kurnool District pending disposal of the above writ petition 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 receive the document i.e. Original Appointment letter dated 25-04-2010 issued by Prasad & Company (Project Works) Limited and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K VISWANATHAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K VISWANATHAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES 3 VS,J W.P.NO.16116 OF 2020 The Court made the following ORDER:- This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “….to issue an appropriate writ order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in cancelling the petitioner’s Authorization as Fair Price Shop Dealer for Shop No. 1331029 of Gorukallu Village, Panyam Mandal, Kurnool District basing on the 6-A report is illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently suspend the proceedings vide Roc. No. CS3/79/2020, dated 29.07.2020 of the 2ndrespondent by continuing the petitioner as fair price shop dealer to the F.P. Shop No.1331029 of Gorukallu Village, Panyam Mandal, Kurnool District...” 2. The case of the petitioner is that he has been appointed as a permanent fair price shop dealer of shop bearing No.1331029 of Gorukallu Village, Panyam Mandal, Kurnool District on 10.07.2015. Since then, he has been distributing essential commodities to the cardholders without any remark. While so, on 05.02.2020, the Deputy Tahsildar (CS) Panyam Mandal, inspected the shop of the petitioner and found certain irregularities in distribution of essential commodities. He conducted a Panchanama in the presence of panchayatdars and mediators and seized the balance of available essential commodities including e-pass machine, weighing machine and handed over the same to Assistant Village Revenue Officer, 4 VS,J W.P.NO.16116 OF 2020 S.Murthujavali Basha, of Gorukallu Village, Panyam Mandal, Kurnool District for safe custody. The 3rd respondent/Tahsildar, Panyam Mandal forwarded the said Panchanama to the 2ndrespondent for initiation of a case under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955(for short “the Act”). It appears, basing on the report of the Tahsildar, Pandyam, the Collector (CS), Kunroolordered a detailed enquiry, pursuant to which, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal, as a part of enquiry, issued a show cause notice by framing certain charges, calling for explanation from the petitioner. The petitioner is stated to have submitted his explanation on 21.03.2020 through his Advocate denying the charges framed against them. Again, a similar show cause notice was issued on 28.05.2020 calling for explanation by framing the same charges. However, being aggrieved by the action of the respondent authorities in not supplying essential commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop, the petitioner filed W.P.No.6166 of 2020. As per the orders in W.P.No.6166 of 2020, vide proceedings in Rc.CS3/79/2020, dated 15.6.2020, the authorization of the petitioner was restored and as a corollary, as a part of enquiry, a show cause notice was issued on 13.07.2020 calling for his explanation, to which the petitioner submitted his 5 VS,J W.P.NO.16116 OF 2020 explanation. After a thorough enquiry, basing on the recommendations of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal, the Collector (CS) Kurnool, holding that the alleged various are beyond the permissible limits as prescribed under Clause 29 (a) of the APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018, passed orders cancelling the authorization of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition came to be filed. 4. The 3rd respondent filed his counter affidavit contending that on receipt of a complaint against the petitioner from the cardholders, the Deputy Tahsildar, on the directions of the Tahsildar, inspected the fair price shop of the petitioner and found certain irregularitiescommitted by the petitioner in distribution of essential commodities to the cardholders. A Panchanama in the present of panchayatdars and mediators was conducted under which certain quantity of essential commodities including e-pass machine and weighting machine were seized and handed over to the local Revenue Assistant for safe custody. Basing on the Panchanama report of the Deputy Tahsildar, a detailed report has been submitted to the 2ndrespondent for initiating disciplinary action against the dealer as well as for initiation of Section 6-A proceedings under the Act. The respondent further contended 6 VS,J W.P.NO.16116 OF 2020 that the dealer has not maintained time for distribution of essential commodities to the cardholders as he was engaged with his own private business. Further, he was also not distributing essential commodities with correct weight to the cardholders. There is a variation of 55 Kgs of ICDS rice stock as against the ground balance of 174 Kgs,which is not a minor or negligent weight and the same amounts to grave irregularity, for which a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. Basing on the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, the Joint collector issued orders cancelling the authorization of the petitioner’s fair price shop in accordance with the powers vested under Clause 8(4) of APTPDS (Control) Order, 2018. Pursuant to the show cause notice issued by the RDO, Nandyal, dated 18.03.2020, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 21.03.2020 and appeared for enquiry on 06.06.2020 and the Joint Collector, after following required formalities issued orders cancelling the authorization of the petitioner’s fair price shop and hence, the respondents prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 7 VS,J W.P.NO.16116 OF 2020 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before issuing cancellation proceedings no proper enquiry has been conducted as per the Clause 8(4) of APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018, which is mandatory. He submits that there was undue influence from the local political parties in submitting the disciplinary reports for issuance of the cancellation orders. He further submits that the disciplinary authority had failed to consider the explanation given by the petitioner though his advocate during the disciplinaryproceedings. He further submits that the variation of 55 Kgs of ICDS rice ground stock as against book balance of 174 kgs was a minor or negligible weight even under clause 29 of the APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018, which does not amount to a grave misconduct as interpreted by the authorities. 7. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies submits that basing on the complaint received from the cardholders, the Deputy Tahsildar, Nandyal inspected the fair price shop and found irregularities in distribution of essential commodities, pursuant to which, a Panchanama was conducted in the presence of mediators and village officers. He further submits that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal 8 VS,J W.P.NO.16116 OF 2020 submitted an enquiry report dated 10.06.2020 confirming the irregularities including incorrect distribution and business misconduct. He further submits that the Joint Collector issued a show cause notice dated 15.06.2020 after receiving the enquiry report by providing an opportunity of submitting an explanation before the cancellation. Further, the respondent authorities followed all the required procedure in issuing a show cause notice and offering the explanation. He further submits that under Clause 29(9A) and 8(4) of APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018, the permissible stock in variation is only at 1.5%. However, the variation on the ground stock of 55 kgs of ICDS rice out of 174 kgs was far in excess which amounts to a grave misconduct. He further submits that under Clause 8(14) the petitioner has maintaining improper schedule timings in issuing essential commodities and under clause 10(d) he did not use weighing machines and vessels properly. The action of the respondents in cancellation of authorization of the petitioner’s fair price shop is justified under law and the petitioner does not have merit in the writ petition. 8. Perused the material available on record. As seen from the report submitted by the Tahsildar, Panyam, it shows that on 9 VS,J W.P.NO.16116 OF 2020 verification of the physical stock as against the book balance, the inspecting officials noticed a variation of physical stock of 55 Kgs of MJM rice as against the book balance. Further, during enquiry, they received certain complaints from the cardholders against the petitioner about not maintaining proper time; not properly weighing the commodities to the cardholders; working at some other place as cashier in Prasad Company (Projects Works) Limited, with a remuneration of Rs.6,000/- per month; and not available in the shop at the time of distribution of commodities to the cardholders. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by framing certain charges.The petitioner submitted his reply through his advocate denying all the charges framed against him. As seen from the said explanation, it shows that except denying the allegations or the charges framed, no substantive proof is produced to disprove the charges. Even the petitioner failed to produce any material before the inspection officials. In the absence of substantive material to disprove the charges framed against him, the cancellation of authorization made in accordance with the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control), Order, 2018, cannot be said to be illegal and unlawful and the same does not call for any 10 VS,J W.P.NO.16116 OF 2020 interference of this court, and thus, the writ petition lacks any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. 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:29.10.2025 LSP 11 VS,J W.P.NO.16116 OF 2020 233 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 16116/2020 Date :29.10.2025 LSP