TANNEERU RAMA KOTAIAH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) QUESTIONING the action of respondent No.4 in seizing 51.98 quintals of PDS rice and 86 kgs. of sugar from the petitioners fair price shop, under panchanama dated 12.12.2014, the present writ petition is filed.

(2.) A perusal of the record demonstrates that the might of the State is being used against a tiny clog in the wheel of administration. The facts which are narrated hereunder would leave anybody in no doubt that the petitioner is made a target to be flushed out of his assignment as fair price shop dealer.

(3.) ON 05.08.2014, the Mandal Revenue Inspector has inspected the petitioners fair price shop and submitted a report under Section 6 -A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. On 11.08.2014, respondent No.2 has issued a show -cause notice to the petitioner and on the same day, he has also suspended the petitioners authorization on the ground that an excess of 44 kgs. of PDS rice was found at the time of inspection. The said order was questioned by the petitioner in W.P.No.27170 of 2014. Following the judgment of this Court in K. Nirmala v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapur and another, 2013 1 ALT 339 this Court, by order dated 16.09.2014, has set aside the order of suspension and allowed the said writ petition, rendering a finding that the petitioners authorization was suspended on vague grounds. It is not in dispute that till 05.12.2014, the petitioner was not allowed to distribute the essential commodities and that on the said date, he was permitted to resume his functions as fair price shop dealer, following the order dated 16.09.2014 passed by this Court. Within seven days thereafter, the administration has again felt the necessity of making another inspection and this time by the Vigilance and Revenue officials together. They have prepared a panchanama, a reading of which would show that the stock of 51.98 quintals of PDS rice and 86 kgs. of sugar along with records were seized only on the ground that a quantity of 93 kgs. of PDS rice was found in excess. No other allegations have been made in the panchanama. Evidently, based on this action, respondent Nos.2 and 3 have stopped supplies to the petitioner.