WP/40638/2022 of The Karimnagar District Co-Operative Marketing Society Ltd. Vs The State of Telangana and 4 Others on 31 December 2024

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus or anyother writ declaring the orders in Proc.No.K/881/2022 dated03 .09.2022 passed by respondent No.2 cancelling the authorization ofthe petitioner's fair price shop No.2033205 of Jammikunta, withoutconducting any enquiry, without framing any charges and withoutgiving any opportuniry of hearing to the petitioner as illegal andarbitrary anci consequently to declare the notificaticn dated 05.09.2A22cailing fbr applications for appointment of the fair price shop ciealerfor the said fair price shop and appointment of respondent No.5 asdealer of the said fair price shopAS illegal and arbitrary andconsequently to set aside the same and direct respondents No.3 and 4to supply the cornmodities to the petitioner's fair price shopNo.2033205, Jammikunta Village and Mandai, Karimnagar District,to supply the same to the cardholders and to pass such other order ororders.

2- Brief facts leading to the frling of the present Writ Petition arethat the petitioner is a society and it was granted dealership of iair.

TMD,Iwp,40638_2022

price Shop No.2033205 o1'Jammikunta Village. It is submitted thaton 20.08.2012, respondent No.4 has registered a case under Section6-4. of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 against the petitionersocrety,even though there were no irregularitiesor illegalitiescommitted by the petitioner society and the stock which was availablein the fair price shop was seized and respondent No.3 has suspendedthe authorization of the petitioner. Thereafter, respondent No.2conducted the proceedings under Section 6-4. of the EssentialCommodities Act, 1955 and passed orders dated 30.08.2013confiscating 20ok o1- tl-re seized stock in lavolr of the Government,which worked out to Rs.846/-. In the meantime. rhe commoditieswere distributed to the cardholders through interim amangement. Thepetitioner approached respondent No.3 requesting to revoke thesuspension order and respondent No.4 also recommended revocationof the suspension order vde proceedings dated 04.04.2014. It issubmitted tltat, vicle proceedings dated 03.09.2022, t\e authorizationof the petitioner to run the said fair price shop has been cancelled andthereafter, the respondent authorities have issued a notification dated05.09.2022 calling for applications for appointing the fair price shopdealer in said fair price shop No.2033205 of Jammikunta Village and

have appointed respondent No.5 as dealer of the said fair price shop.Challenging the cancellation order dated 03.09.2022 and notificationdated 05.09.2022, the present Writ Petition has been filed.3. The respondent authorities have filed a counter affidavit statingthat a case under Section 6-4. of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955was booked against the petitioner in the year 2012 as it was reporledthat respondent No.4 along with Mzu-I Jammikunta, VROJammikunta and Kanagarlhi, proceeded to the fair price shop and theshop was found to be closed and the VRO has contacted the personone B. Sailu, who was running the fair price shop, and he opened theshop and on demand, produced the stock register,, sales register andrelease orders for the month of August, 2012. It is further stated thaton verification of the same, some variations were found in the stockand it was found that there was no closing balance for all essentialcommodities and the petitioner was not maintaining the timingprescribed by the Government and was not maintaining the recordsproperly. In view thereof, the dealership of the petitioner wassuspended and thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to thepetitioner to submit its explanation as to why authorization should notbe cancelled. It is subrnitted that subsequently, confiscation orders TMD,Jwp 40638 2022

under Section 6-4. of the Essential Commodities Act 1955, were alsopassed and that the petitioner had submitted its explanation on08.10.2012 stating that the variations found in the essentialcommodities are within the permissible iimits and the signatures of thecardholders werc not taken in the sales register due to rush of work.However, there was no explanation offered with regard to the lapsesfound and non-functioning of the fair price shop in the prescribedtimings. It is stated that though no action was taken thereafter, thepetitioner has Illed the plesent writ petition after a lapse of 9Y, yearsfor allocation of the fair price shop in his favour without submittingany reasons lbr existing lapses and as to why it has not approached forrevocation ol suspension lbr a long time. It is stated that thereafter,respondent No.i addressed a letter to respondent No.4 calling for areport w'ith regard to the present status of the said fair price shop andaccordingly, respondent No.4 submitted that the fair price shop ispresently being operated with in-charge dealer Sri GarrepalliVenkateshwarlu. In vieu' thereof, the authorization of the fair priceshop was cancelled vide orders dated 03.09.2022 and notification wasissued inviting applications from eligible candidates and as the fairprice shop was reserved fbr General (Woman), one Smt. Bairumalla Sandhyarani, who sccured the highest marks in written tests andinterview, was selected and not respondent No.5. It was further statedthat the action of the respondent authorities in cancelling theauthorization of the petitioner to run the fair price shop was [justified.]4. Vide order dated 27 .03.2024 in LA.No.I of 2024, respondentNo.5 has been deleted from the array of respondents and proposedrespondent No.6 has been impleaded in the Writ Petition.

5. The selected candidate, i.e., Bairurnalla Sandhyarani, who wasimpleaded as respondent No.6, has also filed her counter affidavitstating that she was qualified in the written examination and securedthe highest marks and therefore, her appointment as lair price shopdealer is [justified.]

6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material onrecord, this Court finds that the petitioner society was suspended inthe year 2012 and thereafter, even though no action has been taken bythe respondents for cancellation of the authorization, the petitioneralso has not approached the respondent authorities. It was only in theyear 2022 that the petitioner had approached for revocation of the-ffspension order. The proceedings under Section 6-,4. of the Essential -----

Commodities Act, 1955, were also passed in the year 2012 and, seizedstock was disposed of in the open auction and the sale proceeds wereremitted into the revenue deposits as per order under Section 6_,4' ofremitted into the revenue deposits as per order under Section 6_,4' ofthe Essential commodities Act, r955. Therefore, it is evident that thepetitioner society was not vigilant in pursuing its remedy andthroughout the years, the in-charge dealer was dealing with the stockin the said fair price shop. Though the learned counsel for thepetitioner has placed reliance upon the orders of this court in case ofC. Durgt Srinivas Roo antl others v. State of Andhra pratlesh andothert for the proposition that cancellation ol the authorization of thefair price shop dealer without following due procedure is bad in law,this Court finds that in the above case, there was no delay in thepetitioners approaching the courts or the authorities. The learnedcounsel for the respondent authorities has relied upon the decision ofthe Division Bench of this Court in the case of M. Vanaja v. B.Balaseshanno ond others2 for the proposition that without hearing thethroughout the years, the in-charge dealer was dealing with the stockin the said fair price shop. Though the learned counsel for thepetitioner has placed reliance upon the orders of this court in case ofC. Durgt Srinivas Roo antl others v. State of Andhra pratlesh andothert for the proposition that cancellation ol the authorization of thefair price shop dealer without following due procedure is bad in law,this Court finds that in the above case, there was no delay in thepetitioners approaching the courts or the authorities. The learnedcounsel for the respondent authorities has relied upon the decision ofthe Division Bench of this Court in the case of M. Vanaja v. B.Balaseshanno ond others2 for the proposition that without hearing theaffected party, i.e., respondent No.6 herein, no order should be passed.However, respondent No.6 is also represented before this Court. In"\However, respondent No.6 is also represented before this Court. In"\

1 2015 Lawsuir (H),d) 560' 20iJ7 \4) ALD 388 (FB)2015 Lawsuir (H),d) 560' 20iJ7 \4) ALD 388 (FB)

view ol the fact that the writ petitioner was not vigilant and has notchallenged the suspension order in spite ofthe lapse ofnearly 9 yearsand has only challenged the cancellation order of 2022 after issuanceof the authorization in favour of respondent No.6, this Court is notinclined to interfere with the same and the Writ Petition is liable to bedismissed.

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be noorder as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also standdismissed.

SD/.K. SREE RAMA MURTHYASSISNREGISTRAR

//TRUE COPYII

CTION OFFICER

To

12[9n" ]Two CCs [99 ][to SRt K.VENUMADHAV, Advocate tOpUCt]to Gp FoR CtVtL.SUpiLtES, Hi;h'C;;"fLr the state ofTelangana, at Hyderabad. -aTwo CD Copies [OUT]PSK.BS,/

HIGH COURT

DATED:31 11212024

ORDERWP.No.40638 of 2022t{€ [s ][rr"1]XsIc1 I FrB 2025c.t/lSp^.f Cti DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS

04. tJVVat