V. MADHU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and perused the material available on record.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the petitioner is the Fair Price Shop dealer of the shop bearing No.1151020 of Vankamarri Village, Sri Avadutha Kasinayana Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. He is running the Fair Price Shop and distributing the essential commodities to the satisfaction of the card holders without any complaint. On 11/7/2019, the respondent No.3 issued an Order in Ref.No.1(4)/490/2019, dtd. 11/7/2019, suspending the authorization of the petitioner on the ground that he has committed irregularities in distribution of essential commodities to the card holders. The said Order was received by the petitioner on 19/7/2019. Aggrieved by the suspension Order dtd. 11/7/2019, the petitioner approached the High Court by filing W.P.No.12885 of 2019. By Order dtd. 18/7/2019, the said Writ Petition was disposed of directing the petitioner to submit his explanation against the impugned Order dtd. 11/7/2019 by treating the same as show cause notice within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. In such event, the respondent No.2 shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of explanation by the petitioner. Till such exercise is undertaken, the respondent authorities shall permit the petitioner to run his Fair Price Shop and allot essential commodities on payment of the stipulated amount as per the rules. Pursuant to the said Order, the authorization of the petitioner was restored by the respondent No.3 on 2/10/2019. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 passed the Order in Ref.No.1(4)/490/2019, dtd. 13/1/2020, cancelling the authorization of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Respondent No.2. The respondent No.2, without following due procedure, passed the impugned Order by confirming the Order of the Respondent No.3. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that all the allegations leveled against the petitioner are false and incorrect and he did not violate any of the rules or provisions. Learned counsel further contends that the report of the Tahsildar i.e., the respondent No.5 herein, which formed the basis of the charges was not supplied to the petitioner, which is in violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to the Control Order, 2018. He further contends that the charges/allegations are purported to be invented at the instance of the opponent group who are politically inimical towards the petitioner with a view to get the F.P. shop in their favour. The respondent No.2 passed the impugned Order without taking into consideration the explanation submitted by the petitioner. Learned counsel contends that proper enquiry is required under law before passing the cancellation order, which is not followed by the respondent No.3 and passed the impugned Order of cancellation in mechanical way and the respondent No.2 also without considering the grounds raised in the appeal in a casual manner confirmed the Order of the Respondent No.3.