WP/40017/2012 of Smt. T. Ramayyamma Vs The Joint Collector, on 28 December 2012

ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learnedGovernment Pleader for Civil Supplies.

This Writ Petition is filed questioning the order, dated08.10.2012, passed in Rc.No.8523/2012/C, temporarily suspendingthe authorisation of the petitioner, as confirmed by order, dated24.11.2012, passed in AC.No.2/12 CSR7.

The petitioner is an authorised fair price shop dealer fordistribution of essential commodities for shop No.30 of ChinnaUppada, Hamlet of Chepala Uppada Village, BheemunipatnamMandal, Visakhapatnam District. The business premises of thepetitioner was inspected by the Deputy Tahsildar (Civil Supplies) on04.10.2012 on the ground that there are variations in the stocks, whenthe ground stock was compared with the entries made in the books ofaccount. He submitted a report, basing on which a case was registeredunder Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short,‘the Act’). Consequent to registration of 6-A case, the impugned orderwas passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam,suspending the authorisation of the petitioner. Except referring to thesaid ground of variations in stocks, there is no other allegation madeagainst the petitioner in the impugned order of suspension. Thepetitioner carried the matter by way of an appeal before the JointCollector, Visakhapatnam, which also ended in dismissal, by order,dated 24.11.2012, passed in AC.No.2/12 CSR7.

In this Writ Petition, it is submitted by the learned counsel for thepetitioner that the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act and theproceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities(Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order (for short, ‘ControlOrder’), are different and distinct. It is further submitted that merely basing on registration of 6-A case, it is not open to the respondents tosuspend the authorisation of the petitioner. In any event, with regard tothe nature of allegations made against the petitioner, it is a matterwhich can be enquired into.

On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned GovernmentPleader for Civil Supplies that in view of the fact that 6-A case isalready registered against the petitioner, there is no illegality inpassing the impugned order.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has, during the course ofhearing, placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in AzmeeraBoopathi Nayak v. District Collector (Civil Supplies), Karimnagar and others[[1]], wherein a learned single judge of this Court hasconsidered the scope of the provisions under the Act vis-à-vis theprovisions of Control Order, which is akin to that of Andhra PradeshState Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 and held thatmerely basing on the proceedings initiated under Section 6-A of theAct, the authorities are not empowered to suspend or cancel theauthorisation.

In this Writ Petition also on the ground that 6-A case isregistered against the petitioner, on the allegation of variations instocks, when ground stock is compared with book balance, theimpugned order was passed. It is true that under the scheme of ControlOrder, 2008, there is a provision which authorise the RevenueDivisional Officer to suspend the authorisation, but such power shouldbe exercised in cases where allegations are very serious andimmediate action is warranted to suspend the authorisation in publicinterest. A perusal of the impugned order in this case discloses thatexcept the bald allegation of variations in stocks and registration of 6-Acase against the petitioner, there is no other reason indicated. The judgment relied on by the petitioner fully supports the case of thepetitioner to seek invalidation of the impugned order.

Conclusion

For the aforesaid reasons, I deem it appropriate to allow the WritPetition by setting aside the order, dated 08.10.2012, passed inRc.No.8523/2012/C, as confirmed by the appellate authority by order,dated 24.11.2012, passed in AC.No.2/12 CSR7. The respondents aredirected to restore the authorisation of the petitioner forthwith.However, it is made clear that regarding the allegation of variations instocks, it is open to the respondents to conduct enquiry in accordancewith law.

Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is allowed.Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall standclosed. No costs.

December 28, 2012MD

________________________

R. SUBHASH REDDY, J

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

WRIT PETITION No.40017 OF 2012

MD

[1]2008 (4) ALD 513

December 28, 2012