WP/23995/2004 of N.Krishna Murthy, Vs The Joint Collector, (C.S) on 27 December 2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

W.P.Nos.23901 of 2004, 23995 of 2004 and 23989 of 2004

WRIT PETITION NO : 23901 of 2004

Between:

Smt. N. Anitha, W/o. Laxman, R/o. Village Jalalpur, Mandal & district Nizamabad.

AND

..... PETITIONER

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nizamabad, District Nizamabad.

.....RESPONDENT

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased toissue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ ofMandamus declaring the impugned Order Passed by the Respondent/RevenueDivisional Officer, Nizamabad, in Proceedings No.B3/1713/2004, Dated 18-05-2004in suspending the petitioner's Fair Price Shop Dealership and authorisation of VillgeJalalpur, Mandal and district Nizamabad as illegal, arbitrary, not bonafide andviolation of principles of Natural Justice and consequently set-aside the saidsupspension order in the interest of justice.

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.BHOOMA GOUD

Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

Between:

N.Krishna Murthy, S/o.Narayana, Shanigaram vill, Nallabelly (M), Warangal Dist.

AND

..... PETITIONER

1 The Joint Collector, (C.S) Warangal, Warangal District.

2 The Revenue Divisional officer, Narasampet, Warangal District.

3 The Mandal Revenue officer, Nallabelly, Warangal District.

.....RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased toissue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ ofMandamus declaring the order dated 4-8-2004 in Appeal No.12 of 2004 passed bythe 1st respondent and to declare the order dated 2-7-2004 in order No.E/768/2004passed by the 2nd respondent also to declare the inaction of the 2nd respondent innot completing the enquiry as directed by the 1st respondent vide order dated 4-8-2004 as illegal and arbitrary.

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.PRABHAKAR RAO

Between:

Samula Pulla Reddy S/o Ram Reddy Raghunadhapalem Villge, Matampalli Mandal Nalgonda District.

AND

..... PETITIONER

1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Miryalguda, Nalgonda District 2 the Mandal Revenue Officer, Mattampally Mandal, Nalgonda District

.....RESPONDENT(S)

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased toissue Writ order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandmaus,declaring the action of the 1st respondent in initiating proceedings under theprovisions of A.P. State Public Distribution system Control Order, 2001 and ininitiating proceedings NO. E2/1842/2004 dt 24-6-2004 and 7/2004 as illegal andarbitrary and consequently set a side the same and direct the respondents to permitthe petitioner to function as Fair Price Shop Dealer of Raghunadhapalem Village,Mattampally Mandal, Nalgonda District and to grant such other relief or reliefs as thisHon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.PALLENAGESWAR RAOCounsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

The Court at the stage of admission made the following COMMON ORDER:

Arguments

The Court at the stage of admission made the following COMMON ORDER:

In these three writ petitions, the petitioners are dealers of fair price shops. Theirgrievance is that though their authorisations were suspended by the respectiveRevenue Divisional Officers several months back, no steps were taken in the matterof passing final orders. In some cases, it is alleged that even show cause noticeswere not issued. They seek revocation of suspension, placing reliance on theJudgment of this Court in JOINT COLLECTOR, KURNOOL v A.NEELIMA.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that there is no justification for continuingthe orders of suspension for such a long time.

Learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, on the other hand, submitsthat the revocation of suspension on expiry of 90 days is not a matter of course andthat even according to the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, it is onlywhen there is a persistent lapse on the part of the appointing authority that the orderof suspension shall be revoked.

The petitioners are fair price shop dealers. Their authorisations weresuspended on one ground or the other. This Court is not concerned with the meritsof the matter at this stage. It is not in dispute that though several months haveelapsed ever since the date of order of suspension, the appointing authorities havenot chosen to pass final orders. A Division Bench of this Court in the case referred toabove held that the continued suspension of a dealership cannot be sustained and itwas held that if no orders have been passed within 90 days, the dealershipdeserves to be restored. If the delay is on account of non-cooperation of a dealer, hecannot be extended the benefit of the ratio of the said Judgment. Though time wasgranted to the learned Government Pleader to ascertain as to whether anyextraordinary circumstances, causing delay, attributable to the petitioners exist forsuch a delay, nothing is forthcoming.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petitionsare allowed and the orders of suspension passed against the petitioners are setaside. It is, however, left open to the respective Revenue Divisional Officers, to passappropriate orders against the petitioners on the basis of the record and afterconsidering the show cause notice as well as the explanation that may be offered bythe petitioners. No order as to costs.

_________________

27-12-2004

Note: Issue C.C. by three days

(B/o)

kdl

To

1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nizamabad, District Nizamabad.

2 The Joint Collector, (C.S) Warangal, Warangal District.

3 The Revenue Divisional officer, Narasampet, Warangal District.

4 The Mandal Revenue officer, Nallabelly, Warangal District.

5 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Miryalguda, Nalgonda District 6 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Mattampally Mandal, Nalgonda District.

7 Two C.Cs. to the Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, High Court Buildings,A.P., Hyderabad, (OUT).A.P., Hyderabad, (OUT).

8 Two C.D. Copies.