R.Venkateswarlu, v. State Of Andhra Pradesh,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM WRIT PETITION No.20443 of 2016 ORDER:

The proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gurazala, vide Rc.No.275/2016-C dated 16.06.2016 are challenged in this writ petition whereby the authorization of the petitioner in respect of Fair Price shop No.20 of Mallavolu Village of Machavaram Mandal was suspended.

The principal ground on which the petitioner challenges the impugned order is that only based on the inspection conducted in the premises of the petitioner, the Tahasildar recommended for initiation of 6-A proceedings, which is unjust. The two irregularities, which are found, as reported by the Tahasildar are viz., 1) there is a variation of Q.1.85 kgs. of PDS Rice (Excess) when compared with ground balance and sales and stock registers and 2) there is a variation of 26 Ltrs. of K. Oil (shortage) when compared with ground balance and book balance.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. The learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the orders of this Court dated 12.11.2010 passed in W.P.No.27750 of 2010 submits that the suspension/cancellation of authorization for alleged violation on the ground that 6-A proceedings have been initiated is unsustainable as held by this Court. It is the contention of the petitioner that proceedings under Control Order are distinct and different from the proceedings under the provisions of Essential Commodities Act.

The writ petition is resisted by the learned Government Pleader, who submits that though a recommendation has been made by the Tahasildar to initiate proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act, the

dealer is also liable to be proceeded for violation of the Control Order. The power of suspension being vested in the authority, the same has been exercised and the charges have been framed against the petitioner in relation to violation of the Control Order as evident from the show cause notice dated 09.05.2016.

Having considered the respective submissions, this Court is in agreement with the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader. Charges framed against the petitioner are within the scope of Control Order i.e. allegations are relating to violation of Control Order. Merely because the word '6-A' has been mentioned in the show cause notice, that does not by itself make an action taken merely on account of seizure of the goods in exercise of power under Essential Commodities Act. In the present set of facts, the challenge of suspension pending enquiry order is only on the ground that 6-A proceedings has been mentioned in the suspension order. In that view of the matter, the impugned order does not require any interference as the second respondent is yet to conduct enquiry and pass orders on merits.

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to complete enquiry after taking into consideration the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 18.05.2016 and after giving liberty and pass final orders within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If enquiry is not completed within the stipulated time, the suspension stands revoked and petitioner shall be entitled to continue as dealer till passing of final orders pursuant to enquiry.

Miscellaneous Petitions pending in this writ petition, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

_____________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J.

24th June, 2016 sur