Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/21257/2019 of Smt. Ediga Dhana Lakshmi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 31 December 2019
SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION No.21257 OF 2019 ORDER:- 1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to declare the action of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in not supplying essential commodities to petitioner’s Fair Price Shop
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION No.21257 OF 2019
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.
ORDER:-
1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to declare the action of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in not supplying essential commodities to petitioner’s Fair Price Shop No.1225076 of Kakkalapalli colony, Ananthapuram town and Mandal, Ananthapuram District, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice, consequently direct respondent Nos.2 and 3 to supply essential commodities, to the Fair Price Shop of the petitioner.
2. As seen from material on record, petitioner was appointed as Fair Price Shop dealer for shop No.1225076 of Kakkalapalli colony, Ananthapuram town and Mandal, Ananthapuram District, for distribution of essential commodities to the card holders.
3. While the matter stood thus, due to change in political scenario, third respondent herein/Tahsildar, Ananthapuram town, at the behest of local political leaders influenced by third respondent not supplying essential commodities to the shop of petitioner, without any suspension or cancellation of authorization, as such, the action of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 is illegal and arbitrary.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contentions, placed reliance on the decision of Full Bench in Oleti Tirupathamma v. District Supply Officer (City) Visakhapatnam and others[1] in support of his contention. On the strength of the principle laid down in the above judgment, the learned counsel for petitioner requested to direct the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to supply essential commodities to the Fair Price Shop of petitioner.
5. Whereas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies contended that the petitioner applied for grant of 10 months leave on medical grounds, but second respondent granted leave for two months only, as per G.O.Ms.No.32, Consumer Affairs Food and Civil Supplies (CS-I) Department, dated 03.12.2018 and in case petitioner is not satisfied with the leave, petitioner has to approach authorities by making representation, but without making such representation, petitioner approached this Court, claiming that respondent Nos.2 and 3 are not supplying essential commodities. Grant of leave is a different issue, when the authorities granted only two months leave, it is deemed that the leave applied for 10 months is not granted, therefore, after expiry of leave period of two months, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are bound to supply essential commodities for distribution to card holders. As on today no suspension or cancellation order is passed either during pendency of disciplinary proceedings or initiating on its culmination. In the absence of any order, in view of law declared Oleti Tirupathamma (referred supra), the Full Bench held as follows:
“such action disabling fair price shop dealer to run the shop without any order of suspension or cancellation is illegal and arbitrary and issued such directions”.
7. Applying the principles laid down in the above judgment to the present facts of the case, the action of respondent Nos.2 and 3 is declared as arbitrary and illegal, consequently, I hold that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 being public officers, failed to discharge public duty i.e. supply of essential commodities to the petitioner for distribution of the same to card holders, allotted to the shop. When respondent Nos.2 and 3 failed to discharge their public duty, Court can issue, writ of mandamus, directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 to supply essential commodities to the Fair Price Shop of the petitioner, in view of the law declared in Oleti Tirupathamma (referred supra). Hence, I find that it is a fit case, to issue direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to supply essential commodities to Fair Price Shop of petitioner, to distribute the same to card holders, allotted to the shop.
8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, with the above direction. There shall be no order as to costs.
9. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
Date : 31.12.2019 Rvk
_________________________________________
JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY