Dibba Vinod Kumar v. State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 8409/2020 Between: Dibba Vinod Kumar ...PETITIONER AND State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. M SOLOMON RAJU Counsel for the Respondent(S):

GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES (AP) The Court made the following order: The present writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings vide Sr.No.162/2019/S5 dated 20.04.2020 issued by the 2nd respondent (Joint Collector) wherein the petitioner’s authorization as Fair Price Shop dealer for Shop No.0111019 situated in Old Neyyala Street, Gangapeta Village, Burja Mandal, Srikakulam District, was suspended without conducting enquiry and without following the procedure as contemplated under A.P.State Targeted Public Distribution System (control) order, 2018. 2

Heard Sri Solomon Raju Manchala, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Appasani Vineeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner while re-iterating the contents of the affidavit contended that, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on

14.12.2019 on the alleged ground of irregularities in distribution of essential commodities to the cardholders. He further submitted that, to the said show cause notice, the petitioner has submitted an explanation but the 2nd respondent, however, without conducting any enquiry, has issued impugned order dated 20.04.2020 suspending the petitioner’s authorization for fair price shop No.0111019 even without hearing the petitioner. He further submitted that, this court, by way of interim order dated 05.05.2020, has protected the interest of the petitioner and by virtue of the said interim orders, the petitioner is running the fair price shop. He further submitted that, although 5 years passed, the authorities have not concluded the enquiry nor filed any counter, as such prayed to dispose of the writ petition by treating the interim order as final order.

On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies while justifying the orders of the 2nd respondent submitted that there is neither illegality nor procedural irregularity in passing impugned order. He further submitted that, in order to protect the interest of the cardholder, the impugned order has been issued and further submitted that, in the event if this 3 court inclines to interfere, a liberty may be given to the authority concerned to conclude the enquiry in stipulated period in accordance with law.

Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer of Shop No. 0111019 situated in Old Neyyala Street, Gangapeta Village, Burja Mandal, Srikakulam District. On the alleged ground of irregularities in distribution of essential commodities to the cardholders, a show cause notice dated 14.12.2019 was issued to the petitioner asking to submit explanation by framing charges and the petitioner has submitted explanation. Now, the contention of the petitioner is that, the respondent authorities, without considering the said explanation and without conducting an enquiry, issued the impugned order dated 20.04.2020 thereby suspended the petitioner’s authorization for the subject fair price shop.