PURMA ANDALU Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Lack of proper application of mind and approach by respondent Nos. 5 and 6 has driven the petitioner to this needless litigation. The petitioner is functioning as a fair price shop dealer from the year 1997. Her husband was elected as one of the Directors of a local Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Society (for short 'PACS') in the elections held recently. Respondent No. 6 has issued memo No. B/220/2013, dated 16.04.2013, wherein he has informed the petitioner that the Villagers of Aroor approached respondent No. 5 to take action for discontinuing the petitioner in view of election of her husband as a Director of PACS. Respondent No. 6, while concluding that the petitioner's continuance as the fair price shop dealer is contrary to Clause-12(1) of G.O.Ms. No. 52, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS.I) Department, dated 18.12.2008, called upon her to show cause, in writing, within seven days, why she shall not be removed from dealership, failing which, she will be removed from dealership. A few days later, on 09.05.2013, respondent No. 5 has issued a similar show cause notice. However, in her show cause notice, respondent No. 5 has referred to G.O.Ms. No. 65, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS.I) Department, dated 15.12.2009 and informed the petitioner that her continuance as fair price shop dealer is contrary to the said GO In response to the said show cause notice, the petitioner submitted her explanation, wherein she has stated that she is functioning as a fair price shop dealer since 1997 without any complaints; that she is advised to state that Clause-12(1) of G.O.Ms. No. 52, dated 18.12.2008, only prohibits individuals holding public offices like Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, President of Mandal Praja Parishad, Chairman of Zilla Praja Parishad, Presidents of Co-Operative Societies, Councilors or Chairman of Municipality/Members of Zilla Parishad Territorial Constituency (ZPTC), etc., for being selected and continued as fair price shop dealers; that her husband having been elected as a Director of PACS, she does not fall in any of the said categories; and that in any event, the prohibition contained in the said clause does not apply to any dealer who is near relative of the person holding such public office. While referring to G.O.Ms. No. 65, the petitioner has stated that the said G.O., which introduced the amendment to the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 (for short 'the 2008 Control Order') by way of addition of Clause-17(C), bars the fair price shop dealer/nominated retailer/hawker from taking part in political activities and that even the said clause only applies to the dealers indulging in such activities and not to the near relatives of the persons carrying on such activities.

(2.) Interestingly, without passing an order on the notice, dated 09.05.2013, respondent No. 5 has issued another notice, vide Memo No. C/939/2013, dated (sic).06.2013, wherein she has once again called upon the petitioner to show cause why she shall not be removed from the dealership as her husband was elected as Director of a PACS. Vexed with this attitude of respondent Nos. 5 and 6, the petitioner filed this Writ Petition.

(3.) As noted herein before, in the notice, dated 16.04.2013, issued by respondent No. 6, he has placed reliance on Clause-12(1) of G.O.Ms. No. 52, dated 18.12.2008. In her first notice, dated 09.05.2013, respondent No. 5 has referred to G.O.Ms. No. 65, dated 15.12.2009, even though no specific clause has been referred to and relied upon by her. In her second notice, she has not even referred to any of the Control Orders or executive instructions.