Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Panga Ramanamma vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 16 October, 2020
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT PETITION No.18404 OF 2020
ORDER:(Heard and pronounced through BlueJeans App (Virtual) mode, since this mode is adopted on account of prevalence of Covid-19 pandemic) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. With their consent, the matter is being disposed of, at the stage of admission.
2. The grievance of the petitioner, in the present writ petition, is that the petitioner is not allowed to run the fair price shop without issuing any order of suspension or cancellation in terms of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 (for short, the Control Order). The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer and she has been running the fair price shop for the last 24 years. Pursuant to a surprise raid on 14.8.2020, the third respondent registered a case under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, the E.C. Act) for confiscation of the seized stocks. A show cause notice dated 18.9.2020 was issued to the petitioner alleging that she was not displaying Notice Board at a prominent place and thereby contravened Clause 12(n) of the Control Order. The petitioner submitted explanation on 28.9.2020 denying the charges. No orders in respect of the said proceedings under Section 6-A of the E.C. Act have been passed. However, the petitioner is not allowed to distribute the essential commodities to the card-holders, without issuing any order of suspension or cancellation. Hence, the writ petition is filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's authorization has not been suspended or cancelled, 2 as per the provisions of the Control Order and as such she is entitled to receive and distribute essential commodities to the card-holders in terms of the judgment of the Full Bench in Oleti Tirupathamma v. District Supply Officer1. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that on 18.9.2020 an order of suspension has been passed against the petitioner. He tried to justify the action of the respondents inter alia contending that the petitioner's authorization was expired and as on the date of the inspection, the petitioner is not having valid authorization. He submits that under the said circumstances, the relief sought for by the petitioner may not be granted. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that no order of suspension much less the order of suspension dated 18.9.2020 has been served on the petitioner and further that the petitioner's authorisation is in force up to 31.3.2021.
4. Considering the submissions made by the counsel for both the parties, as admittedly the petitioner submitted explanation dated 28.9.2020 to the show cause notice dated 18.9.2020, the fourth respondent shall consider the explanation and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till appropriate orders are passed by the fourth respondent, the respondent shall allocate essential commodities to the fair price shop of the petitioner and the petitioner shall be allowed to distribute the same to the card- holders.
1 2002 (1) ALT 216 3
5. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J October 16, 2020 YS