Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/21441/2020 of J BABU RAO Vs THE STATE OF AP on 31 December 2020
KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI WRIT PETITION No.21441 of 2020 ORDER: Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. At their request, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. The Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Conclusion
HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI WRIT PETITION No.21441 of 2020
ORDER:
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. At their request, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.
The Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents, in issuing show cause notice dated 09.08.2020, to cancel the petitioner’s dealership, for contravention of Clause 8(4) of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 (for short ‘the Control Order, 2018), as illegal and arbitrary.
Petitioner states that, based on the newspaper item published on 14.03.2020 in Sakshi Daily Newspaper, Nellore Edition, that he approached to support the nomination of BJP candidate, the impugned show cause notice was issued alleging violation of Clause 12(s) of the Control Order, 2018. He contends that the inspecting authorities visited the fair price shop intentionally when he was not available; there are no variations in so far as commodities are concerned; and with an intention to appoint some other person only, the impugned show cause notice has been issued.
As seen from the show cause notice, the news paper item was mentioned as violative of Clause 12(s) of the Control Order, 2018; when the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, Kavali, and staff visited the subject fair price shop, the petitioner was not available and his brother was asked to produce the authorization, stock register and epos closing balance reports, which were not produced; even, the dealer has not exhibited sealed samples of rice/sugar/ragi/jawar/ RG Dal at the fair price shop; complaint box was not maintained; stock board-cum-price list has not been displayed; and, therefore, requested to take disciplinary action against the FP shop dealer for violation of Clauses 10(c), 10(d) and 12(s) of the Control Order, 2018.
The following charges are framed against the petitioner:
Charge 1: The F.P.Shop dealer is involved in political activities and thus violated clause 12(s) of APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018.
Charge 2: The F.P.Shop dealer is intentionally not issuing the receipts to the cardholders after taking biometric authentication and thus violated the clause 10(c) of APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018.
Charge 3: The FP Shop dealer using unauthorized weighment such as tins and vessels for distribution and thus violated clause 10(d) of APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018.
Charge 4: At the time of Inspection, the FP shop dealer was not present at the FP Shop and his brother is running the FPShop taking biometrics of the authorized F.P. Shop dealer and thus violated the clause 12(a) of APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018.
Charge 5: The FP Shop dealer is not exhibiting sealed samples of E.Cs. at F.P.Shop, not maintaining the complaint box or book and not displayed the stock board and thus violated the clause 12 (n) of APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018.
As the impugned order is only a show cause notice, this Court is not inclined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction. It is not the case of the petitioner that the person who issued show cause notice is not competent to issue the same.
In view of the fact that show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner, he is at liberty to file his explanation; and on filing such explanation, the appropriate authority is directed to deal with the same, and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
Dt:31.12.2020 usd
_________________________________
KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J