J. Murali vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Others

Battu Devanand, J

1) This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming the following relief:

“To issue writ of mandamus declaring the impugned order vide Roc. A3/841/2022 dt 11.04.2022 of 3rd respondent whereby cancelling the authorisation of fair price shop No1081015 of Madanapalle Town and Mandal Chittoor District without giving sufficient opportunity of petitioner basing on the 6-A report as illegal, arbitrary, consequently to suspending the impugned order of the 3rd respondent vide Roc.A3/841/2022 dt 11.04.2022 and continued petitioner authorisation of fair price shop No.1081015 of Madanapalle Town and Mandal, Chittoor District.”

2) The petitioner has been working as Fair Price Shop Dealer of Fair Price Shop No.1081015 of Madanapalle Town and Mandal, Chittoor District. He is having valid authorization issued by the competent authority. The petitioner has been working as dealer for a long time and discharging his duties without any complaint. The fourth respondent, along with the staff inspected the fair price shop on 27.02.2022 and seized the stocks available in the shop i.e 110.60 Qtls of PDS rice, 10 packets of sugar and registered a case under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. A panchanama was drafted at the time of seizure. The authorization of the petitioner was suspended on 23.03.2022 and a show cause notice was also issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 29.03.2022. Considering the same, the third respondent issued proceedings in Roc.A3/841/2022 dated 11.04.2022 cancelling the authorization of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

3) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the fourth respondent seized the fair price shop of the petitioner in a proper manner under a cover of fair panchanama. The third respondent, without conducting an independent enquiry, suspended the authorization of the petitioner on 23.03.2022 and issued show cause notice on the same day. The third respondent without considering the explanation properly, simply basing on the enquiry report submitted by the fourth respondent, cancelled the authorization of the petitioner.

4) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies contends that the petitioner was red-handedly caught hold of converting and packing PDS rice into white colour plastic bags each 50 Kgs each and loading 13 bags i.e. 650 Kgs in an auto from his Fair Price Shop for diverting into black market. The written statement of the auto driver proves the clandestine movement of PDS stock by the fair price shop dealer.

5) The learned Government Pleader further submits that, the petitioner has not maintained the stock register and sales register separately and both are in one register. The inspecting authorities found huge variation of the stocks comparing to the records and ground balance. As such, the authorization of the petitioner was suspended, pending enquiry initially and thereafter, considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice, passed the impugned order of cancellation of authorization of the petitioner, in view of the serious irregularities found.

6) Having considered the submissions of the respective counsels and upon perusal of the material available on record, it appears that, it is an admitted fact that the fourth respondent submitted a report to the third respondent, wherein, it is stated that the petitioner was caught red-handedly while transporting PDS rice into black market. There is huge variation in the stocks. Accordingly, pursuant to the panchanama, a case under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, was registered against the petitioner and submitted a report to the third respondent. The third respondent, keeping the interest of the cardholders, cancelled the authorization of the petitioner pending enquiry and attached the petitioner’s shop to the neighbouring dealer. After considering the explanation of the petitioner, the impugned order was passed by the third respondent cancelling the authorization of the petitioner.

7) On careful consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the respective counsel, it appears that the third respondent passed the impugned order by following the procedure. This Court did not find any violation of principles of natural justice in passing the impugned proceedings. Admittedly, the petitioner without exhausting the alternative remedy of the appeal, filed this writ petition directly. Against the order of the third respondent as per Clause (24)(A) of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018, an opportunity is provided to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Joint Collector of the concerned district. In the present case, the petitioner without availing statutory remedy available to him, he has filed the writ petition, which is not permissible.

8) For the above stated reasons, in our considered view, there are no valid grounds to interfere into the order passed by the third respondent.

9) Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority by filing an appeal.

10) Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.

11) There shall be no order as to costs.