Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Sri G.Arunakar Rao vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh,Rep. By ... on 7 October, 2014
Author: C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy
Bench: C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITON No.29705 of 2014
07-10-2014
Sri G.Arunakar Rao ..Petitioner
Government of Andhra Pradesh,Rep. by the Secretary to Government,Civil Supplies
Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad,and others... Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. T.S. Praveen Kumar
Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies (AP)
<GIST:
>HEAD NOTE:
? CITATIONS:
THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.29705 of 2014
Dated: 07.10.2014
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in restoring the petitioners authorization in respect of fair price shop No.23, Ramaraopet, Kakinada, East Godavari District, following the order dated 01.09.2014 of respondent No.3 passed under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short the Act).
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.
The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer in Kakinada Urban. Following an inspection conducted by the officials of the Civil Supplies Department on 06.07.2012, proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act were initiated by respondent No.3. Simultaneously, respondent No.4, who is the licensing authority, issued show-cause notice in Ref.G/2254/2012 dated 13.07.2012, wherein the petitioner was directed to explain as to why his authorization should not be cancelled on the lapses allegedly detected during the inspection made on 06.07.2012. By a separate order passed on the same day, respondent No.4 has suspended the petitioners authorization pending enquiry into the allegations. The proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act ended in respondent No.3 passing an order on 01.09.2014, whereby he has found that there was a shortfall in the rice stock to the extent of 45 kgs. compared to the book stock and that as the same is in excess of the permissible variation of 1.5%, he has ordered confiscation of 0.5% of seized stock value. The petitioner, having accepted the said order, is stated to have paid the cost of the stock which was ordered to be confiscated. Subsequently, the petitioner made a representation to respondent No.4 for restoring his authorization. As no decision has been taken thereon, he has filed the present writ petition.
It is trite that the scope of proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act and a disciplinary proceeding initiated by the licensing authority for the alleged violations is different and distinct. While under the former proceedings, the State is entitled to confiscate the essential commodities for the proven violations, under the latter proceedings, the licensing authority is entitled to impose appropriate penalties as per the A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 (for short the Control Order), if the allegations made against the dealer are proved by an independent enquiry. The licensing authority has, therefore, to pass an order independent of the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act. Having initiated disciplinary proceedings by suspending the petitioners authorization and issuing show-cause notice, respondent No.4 has to bring the proceedings to its logical end, by holding an enquiry and passing an appropriate order. The order passed by the competent authority under the provisions of Section 6-A of the Act, at best, may be a relevant factor to be considered by the disciplinary authority while passing final order.
In this view of the matter, while holding that the petitioner is not entitled to automatic restoration of the authorization, respondent No.4 is directed to hold enquiry, wherein he shall give an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, and pass an appropriate final order under the provisions of the Control Order, within two months from the date of receipt of this order.
Subject to the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
As a sequel to the disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.37085 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
_________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 7th October, 2014