Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Tanneeru Rama Kotaiah vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By Its ... on 16 December, 2014
Author: C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy
Bench: C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.38568 of 2014
16-12-2014
Tanneeru Rama Kotaiah..Petitioner
State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Joint Collector (C.S.), Guntur, and
others... Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. M. Brahma Reddy
Counsel for the respondents:AGP for Civil Supplies (AP)
<GIST:
>HEAD NOTE:
? CITATIONS:
1.2013 (1) ALT 339
THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.38568 of 2014
Dated: 16.12.2014
The court made the following:
ORDER:
Questioning the action of respondent No.4 in seizing 51.98 quintals of PDS rice and 86 kgs. of sugar from the petitioners fair price shop, under panchanama dated 12.12.2014, the present writ petition is filed.
A perusal of the record demonstrates that the might of the State is being used against a tiny clog in the wheel of administration. The facts which are narrated hereunder would leave anybody in no doubt that the petitioner is made a target to be flushed out of his assignment as fair price shop dealer.
On 05.08.2014, the Mandal Revenue Inspector has inspected the petitioners fair price shop and submitted a report under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. On 11.08.2014, respondent No.2 has issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner and on the same day, he has also suspended the petitioners authorization on the ground that an excess of 44 kgs. of PDS rice was found at the time of inspection. The said order was questioned by the petitioner in W.P.No.27170 of 2014. Following the judgment of this Court in K. Nirmala v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapur and another , this Court, by order dated 16.09.2014, has set aside the order of suspension and allowed the said writ petition, rendering a finding that the petitioners authorization was suspended on vague grounds. It is not in dispute that till 05.12.2014, the petitioner was not allowed to distribute the essential commodities and that on the said date, he was permitted to resume his functions as fair price shop dealer, following the order dated 16.09.2014 passed by this Court. Within seven days thereafter, the administration has again felt the necessity of making another inspection and this time by the Vigilance and Revenue officials together. They have prepared a panchanama, a reading of which would show that the stock of 51.98 quintals of PDS rice and 86 kgs. of sugar along with records were seized only on the ground that a quantity of 93 kgs. of PDS rice was found in excess. No other allegations have been made in the panchanama. Evidently, based on this action, respondent Nos.2 and 3 have stopped supplies to the petitioner.
The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies (A.P.) has not disputed and indeed he could not, that under Clause 24 of the A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008, variation upto 1.5% of total stock is permissible. As per this Clause, there could be variation upto 78 kgs. of PDS rice. Even if the allegations contained in the panchanama are taken on their face value, the variation in excess of the permissible limits is only 15 kgs. For this reason, the official machinery has thought it worth to seize the entire rice and sugar.
On these facts, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the executive apparatus has abused its powers evidently for extraneous reasons. The petitioner specifically alleged that all this is done due to political vengeance. Though no factual foundation is laid by the petitioner in support of this allegation, the extraordinary manner in which the respondents have acted by conducting repeated inspections and initiating action, though such action was not warranted even if the allegations are accepted in toto, gives rise to a reasonable presumption that the respondents have acted with oblique motive and mala fide intention. The energies and resources of the official machinery cannot be allowed to be dissipated for targeting individuals in the name of prevention of malpractices and the executive apparatus cannot be allowed to act with vengeance against innocent citizens.
On a careful consideration of the facts of the case, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the very act of seizure of the essential commodities only on the allegation that there was excess stock of 93 kgs. of PDS rice out of 51.98 quintals of PDS rice, in the absence of any other allegation of omissions and commissions by the petitioner, constitutes patent arbitrariness and abuse of power on the part of the respondents. Therefore, the panchanama dated 12.12.2014 is quashed. Respondent No.1 is restrained from initiating any proceedings based on the said panchanama. The respondents are directed to forthwith return the seized stocks to the petitioner to enable him to continue as fair price shop dealer.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed.
As a sequel to the allowing of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.48293 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
_____________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 16th December, 2014