WP/33417/2010 of Smt. Nune Varalakshmi Vs The Joint Collector (FAC), on 30 December 2010

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner feeling aggrieved bythe order of respondent No.2 dated 18.10.2010, as confirmed in appealby respondent No.1 vide his order dated 25.11.2010, whereby her fairprice shop authorization was suspended and confirmed respectively.

I have heard Sri Md. Saleem, learned counsel for the petitionerand the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.

The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer of shop No.3 ofMasapet, Rayachoty town and Mandal, Kadapa District. On16.10.2010, the petitioner’s shop was inspected by the DeputyTahsildar along with Food Inspector and Mandal Revenue Inspector,Rayachoty. During the inspection, it was allegedly found that out of thetotal quantity of 162.75 quintals of PDS and AAY rice, there was ashortage of 3.60 quintals. Apart from initiating proceedings underSection 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, departmentalproceedings had been initiated against the petitioner. As part of theseproceedings, order dated 18.10.2010 was passed by respondent No.2,whereby he has kept the petitioner’s authorization under suspension.

Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal beforerespondent No.1. While declining to interfere with the order ofrespondent No.2, respondent No.1, vide his proceedings dated25.11.2010, directed respondent No.2 to dispose of the case within aperiod of four weeks from the date of receipt of that order. Feelingaggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

Inasmuch as the enquiry into the allegations made against thepetitioner is pending, it is not appropriate for this Court to renderconclusive findings. However, for the limited purpose of adjudication ofthis case, it requires to be noted that the only allegation on which thepetitioner’s authorization has been suspended is the alleged shortageof rice to the extent of 3.60 quintals out of 162.75 quintals whichappears to be within permissible limits. Except this allegation, noother allegation of omission and commission on the part of thepetitioner has been made. While the departmental officials are entitledto make a strict vigil on the running of the fair price shops, in the guiseof such vigilance, they shall not resort to undue harassment of thedealers. Prima facie, I am of the opinion that the extreme action ofsuspension of authorization on a flimsy ground of negligible variationin quantity of rice constitutes patent arbitrariness. The impugned order of respondent No.2 itself shows that the petitioner has offered spotexplanation that she has received the quantity of PDS rice from MLSpoint without any weightment. Whether this explanation is acceptableor not requires to be examined by the disciplinary authority in theenquiry proceedings. But by no means, the allegation made againstthe petitioner is so serious as to warrant suspension of theauthorization. Such unwarranted actions affect the morale of even thehonest dealers. It is high time that the officers at the helm of affairsshall apply their mind to these vital aspects and ensure that in genuinecases only the action of interim suspension of authorization is takeninstead of resorting to suspension in a routine manner on flimsygrounds.

The reason given by respondent No.1 in declining to interferewith the order passed by respondent No.2, namely, that as suspensionis only interim in nature, he is not inclined to interfere with the same,cannot be appreciated either. Irrespective of whether the order isinterim or final in nature, the appellate authority is under obligation toexamine its sustainability or otherwise in law with reference to the factsof the case. Respondent No.1 failed to apply this principle indisposing of the appeal.

In the light of the above findings, the impugned orders dated18.10.2010 and 25.11.2010 of respondent Nos.2 and 1 respectivelyare set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to complete the enquiryand pass appropriate order after giving an opportunity of being heardto the petitioner. Till passing of such order, the petitioner shall beallowed to continue as fair price shop dealer.

Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is allowed.

As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.42392of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of asinfructuous.

________________________

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

30[th] December, 2010

Note: L.R. Copies to be marked.(B/o)GHN