Billa Jagadamba v. 1. The State of Tetangana

...RESPONDEI,I MRIT PETITIONER 2. Sri Parsa Ravinder, Sio. not known to the petitio I :r, Age [t4ajor, Occ Reporter, Rl/o. Dubbak Proper and I\,4andal, Siddipet Dist ct. ...RESPONT ENT/RESPONDENT Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c rcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cor r may be pleased to vacate the lnterim Orders granted in l.A.No.1 of 2017 in W.l ,.No.28 160 of 2017, dt: 07.07.2O17 and dismiss the WP Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. K VENUMADHAV Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to4: GP FOR CIVIL SUPt LIES Counsel for the Respondent No.5:- The Court made the following: ORDER .ji"{t{+- =;EFfl AF{E"?Z .: f - I '-'- .i' ' ,./ I "''A) THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI ORDER: W.P.NO. 2 1860 0F 2017 In this writ petitron, the petitioner is seeking a u'rit of mandamus cleclaring the order:s passed by the respondent No 2 d.ated 20.06.2017 dirccring the respondent No 3 to remove the upon rvhich lhe resPondent No 3 authoriza|iono[thepetitioner,sfairpriceshopdealershipand has issued orders dated the authorizal ion of t he

28.Ob.2U 17 straightarta\ remt )ving petitioner's fair price shop No 41, Dubbak Village and Mandal of Siddipet District, without issuing any notice to the petitioner and without giving an1' opportunity of hcaring to the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and uncon stitutional and consequentlv Lo direclthercspondentsNo.2to4tocontinuethesupplyofthe commodilies to thc petitioner's fair price shop and to pass such other order or orders in the intercst ofjusticc'

2. Brief facts icading to the hling of the present rvrrt petition are lhat the pctitioner was appointed :rs a fair price shop dealer in lhe year 1984 and has been running the said fair price shop vvithout an1' complainl irom any cardholder' It is stated that the petitioncr is thc only bread earner of the family' It is stated that the respondent No 5' who is a working as a :i 3 i : i I t , I 2 reporter in 1.her petttioner's r.,illage and has a ha I r - of extracting moncy fronr fzrir prrr:e shop dealers and other l-;r sinr:ssmen by blackmailing them, h:rs dei'elopccl a pcrsonal gruc gc again sl tl-re petitioncr zrnd he r husband and has startecl har: ssing her and under the inlluencc and prcssurc of responcl nt No.5, the respondent No-3 on 24.12.2016, issued a sho... caltse noLicc leveling three r:harges against hei i.e., ii) thc pr:ri ioncr has not been distributing tlit: commodilres to thc cardho lers properly; and (ii) shc has not been main raining thc sr or l register and distribution register prope r11.; and (iii) thus, r. io lr ted the State Public Distribution Control Order of 2OO,'t 'equinng the petitioner lo submit her explanation rvithin sever lays from the rlate of receipt of the said noticer. Thc petitione r r lilirns to havc submitted a detailed explanation on 02_01.2017 r; atrng that the charges levelled against her are false ancl ,, bricated and requesteci to drop the proceeclings. Ilorvever, thcr )eliticner was placed under sr-Lspension r,.ide procecdings |kr I 17o13 /2016, dated 09.O 1 .2OL7 . it is st:\ted that thereafLer. r r c respondent No.3 conducteti an inquiry and could not find arr illegalities or irregularities committed by the petitioner and herLr e revoked the suspension order and vide Proceedings No.B/701i 72016, dated

28.02.2017 imposed a penalry ol Rs. 1,OOO/-. 1r is submitted 3 that the petitioner paid the penalty and said ordcr has Lhus become finaI. But subsequent thercto, on 20.06-2017, under the pressure and influencc of :-espondeni No.5, respondent No.2 has addressecl a letter lo the respondent No.3 stating that the education ccrtificate submittcd by thc petitioner was a fabricated one and that the pelitioner has misguided the appointing authority to get the fair price shop dealership in the year 1984. The responclcnt No.2 therelore inslrtlcted the respondent No.3 to take ncccssatl actiott lor rcmoval of hcr dealership. It is sLaleC th:rt thc rcmovitl of hcr dealcrship appears [o have been issuccl upol] a case initiated belorc the A.P.Human Rights Commission Case No.9O3 of 2O17. lt is submittecl by the learncd counsel lor the petitioner that the respondent No-3 has not looked into thc record pcrtaining to the awarding of authorizalion in lter favour and that already a similar complaint was lllcd ag.rit-tst her, -*'hich got concluded and therefore, the respondents coLrld noL have re-opened the case and could not have passed the ordcr of cancellation of authorization without issuing ar-ry notice to the petitioner. Therefore, according to the petitioncr, it is in clcar violation of principles o[ nalural justicc. / / 4

3. When the matler camc up for a lmissron, on

07.O7.2017, this Court had grantcd rnterim su:r; cnsion of the impugncd order in W.P.M. P. No.269O I of 20 17. uirrch is re numbered as I.A.No.1 of 2017 and tlrus the petitl rner has been continued zrs a uthorized dealer of lhe subjecr lai price shop till date.

4. Learne d Government Pleader app,: .ring for the respondent No.3 has filed a counter a[frdavit alonp r.vrth thc Sta-v Vacate Petition i.e., I.A.No. I of 2024

5. Learned cour-rscl for ihc petitioner ; .r bm it te cl thaL the petitioner \vas appointcd as a fa.ir price sho p ,1eale r in the lear 1984 rvhen there was no education qualificat on prcscribed for the apporntment of a fair price shop dcalcr rnci t.herefore, [here was no occasion for the petitioncr to submi. 1ny certificate leave-alone. the 1O'1r claqs certificatc as ar l rged by the respondents. 11, is stated thlrt for thc ven, same is,; le. action \4/as initiated in the year 2O08 ancl an inquiry was ccr ducLed and ir was observcd that the petitioner was not submrtt() i any TC' and thereafter rhe matter lr.as closed. it is subm i tcd that the ( petitioner \ .as not asked to submit any documc -l -s in the year =i 984 and he further submittcd that beforc p Lssir-rg of thc i , I I I I i1 I I ! i i i : I I ! E! ! i 3 I n E I I , I I ! I ! t I i I I I i I : I I i l 5 cancellation order, u,lrich is the impugned order in this writ petition, noticc ought Lo irave bcen issueci to the petrtioner and this impugned order h:rs becn passecl r,r,ithout 1bllowrng lhe principlcs ol nerturzrl .jListrcc and pr.ryed for aliori.rng of the writ petltlon

6. In the counter alfidavit filecl bv the respondent No-3, if is st:rtcd that there ri,crc ser.eral complaints lrom the villagers that the petitior.rer was not supplving the commodities [o their satisfactir:n :rnci that the said shop u.:rs being run by the husband and son ol the pctitiortcr ancl Lhat a shou, cause notice to that cllect u,as issur:d to thc pctitroner and the petitioner has also sr"tltmi ccl hcr cxplanati ctn on t),2.OI.2O17 and not being satisliccl n-rth ritc explanation submitted. Lhe petitioner surspcnsion lor a periocl of one It is stated Lhat *re suspension revoked ri.LLh the rmposition of :r penal ty on 2a.O2.2017. Thercafter, during thc inquiry being conducted by the District Collector on I g.02.20 17 and 25.03 .2O17 . both parties attended for hearing ancl rhat the petitioner submitted Xerox copies of her school cerrillcates and w,hen the original certificates were askecl to be produced, the Head Master of the Zilla Parishacl High School (Girls) appeared along with thc ) ) was placcd undcr from 09.O t.20 17. order was month i.e., 6 '.,.,;. rccord and submitted that tl-rc "lC'submitrcd br the petitiolLer lvas not isstred in the year 1982 but u,as issu d ur Lhc vcar 2008 and that the educ:rtional ccrtifir:atrr rr-oc Irrccd wi] s labricaled. In vieu' thereof, the '[ahsild:rr subn it L :d a complaint againsl the petilioner on 3 1.01.2009 and t I :rca llcr, after follor,",ing clue process, the u'rit pctitioncr has bt'ert rc: r'ttoi ccl lrom lhe fair pricc shop dcalcrship. lt is sublr i tecl tl-rat RDt-) has acted urrder the delegaled po\\'ers and issi-rc: the impurgnccl re moval orclers.

7. I-earned Counsel for thc pctitiotLtrr I as also lilcd a reply affid:rvit rciterating the stand taken br, [:r in ther writ alfidavit

8. Having regard to the rivzrl cot-tlLr r it.rtis ancl th,r nate rizrl o Lr record, this Court finds that the petirioncr rr iis appointed in the year 1984 and admittecllr. she has t'tot submitted arLy certificates in support oi L, r crluc:rliona I quzrlification s. Vide G.O.Ms.No.198, clated C.' .o') |996, r he Minimum (ieneral Educational Qualification rrescribed for appointment of an authorized dealer was 7rl class pass or higher and where no candidate is availablc n.rtii thc said minimurn gcncral educational qualifications, a candidatc .f. 7 possessing a lcsscr cducarional qlralification if app.lied, may be cot-rsidered for appointmenr. Vide G.O.Ms.No.2O, clated 06.09.2018, the minimunr gcncral cducation:rl qr-ralilication has been prcscribed as lOrh t:lass piiss or higlrer qu.rlificat ion zrnd u'herc no candidale ts av.rilable r,vith ntinimum cducational qualification, a person u,ith 7rh class pass may also be considered under special circumstances to bc notificcl b1. the competent authority. Thcreforc. llle conrcntion of the petitioner occasion fbr her to subrnit the .fC, of l Orl, that there was no class at the ttme of her appointment is reasonable :rnd acceptable. The requircntent unrlcr ri,hich tl.rc puljtioncr llas submittcd a Xcrox copy of tl-rc .lC, is also rrot explained b_r,. the rcspondent authorilics. Further, it also appcars tl-rat lbr [[-re very. same rcason, the respondcnts li:rue ir-ritrarecl action rn the 1,s2p 20 16 by issuing a shor,r' causc noticc ancl Lhe pctrtioner has submittcd her cxplanation and thc said procecdings have cndcd by imposition of a penalty of Rs. 1,000/ ancl thereafter, lor thc very same reason, proceedings s.cre initiated by issuance o[ a letter dated 20.06.2017 and that too r,r,ithout issuance of any show cause notice. Therefore, thc impugned orders are clearly in violation of the principles of natural justice arnd vide interim order dated OT .O7 .2O 17 , thrs Court had grante<1 interim J I I 8 suspensiolr of the impugned order and thererr. thc petitroner iras continued as a fair price shop dealer-

9. l,r:arned r:ounscl lor the petitiorrct' ]r ls r(rlicd LIpon rhe judgmer-rt of this Court in the casc ol G.Dr rga Srinivasa Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Othersl in supporl rr1' his contcntlons that thc guiding principies i r clLsci pli narr action against the authorized dcalers as culled or t in I)a ra-26r ol rhc said olclcl are not follolr,ed in this case. It ,s .-r lcir r Lh.rt thL- said procedtrre has l-rot been follourcd by thr: rcsl ,ndcnts in Lhr s CA SC, 10- ln vier,r, lhereof, this Court is rnclir r cl [o sct asic]c tlrc impugncd order dated 28.06.2,O17 1 1. ,\r:corclingly, lhe n,rit petition is aLiori :cl. 'l']rcre sir:r11 be no ordcr :is to costs

12. Miscellancous peLitions, if any, pcnil rrg irr this rrrir petilion, shall stand closed. 2015 (6)ALD 359 /,TRUE COPY// SD/. A.H \' \, ,, GOW RI SHANKAR II TANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, ; iHifl$'flHtt;:;g,'tJ#:it*1',#ffi :: : ,-- ::'"' DistricJ -a#, , ,lv7 :ff 6;il*$#*E:{lrffi'tr*}prdf Bm evL ([ t"i1H1i::',.::::e'iDsrc HIGH COURT DATED:1 510912025 .zl i,'.s' i: t- 0 4 i:[ ipf I \:" i "'t i: ORDER WP.No.21860 of 2017 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITI.I)UT COSTS ,44\ /ll)\ \./ ( A i( 7 f