WP/24452/2004 of S. Ramakrishna, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer, on 29 December 2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

WRIT PETITION NO : 24452 of 2004

Between:

S. Ramakrishna, S/o. Thimmappa,Anumpalli (V), Settur ( M), Anantapur District.

AND

..... PETITIONER

1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram, Anantapur District.

2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Settur Mandal, Anantapur 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 a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari,calling for the records with regard to and in connection with the proceedings inRC.No. 1811/2004/F, dt. 26.8.2004, and quash the same.

Counsel for the Petitioner:KOTHAPALLI RAM MOHAN CHOWDARY

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

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

The petitioner was appointed as a fair price shop dealer of Anumpalli village, SetturMandal, Ananthapur District. His authorisation was suspended by the firstrespondent through proceedings dated 26-08-2004 on the allegation that thepetitioner collected Rs.0.25 ps per kg of rice and Rs.0.50 ps. per liter of kerosene,over and above the stipulated price and that he supplied 1 kg rice to the white cardholders less than their entitlement. The petitioner submitted his explanation and healleges that no orders have been passed by the first respondent.

Placing reliance upon a Judgment of this Court in JOINT COLLECTOR, KURNOOLv A.NEELIMA, he contends that the order of suspension is liable to be set aside.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for CivilSupplies.

On the allegation that the petitioner has collected certain amount more than thestipulated price on the essential commodities and supplied 1 kg rice less than theactual entitlement to the customers, the first respondent suspended his authorisationthrough proceedings dated 26-08-2004.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before this Court a copy of theproceedings dated 29-09-2004 of the second respondent, the Mandal RevenueOfficer. A perusal of the same discloses that after the petitioner submitted hisexplanation, the first respondent required the second respondent to offer his remarksafter conducting enquiry and that the second respondent reported that theallegations against the petitioner are motivated. He ultimately opined that the proceedings against the petitioner may be dropped either by giving a warning orlevying a fine. Nearly three months have elapsed from the date of theseproceedings. The inaction on the part of the first respondent is virtually inexplicable.

Suspension of a dealership tends to become a major penalty, if it is continuedbeyond a particular time. In the case referred to above, this Court took the view thatthe suspension of authorisation cannot be continued beyond 90 days, except whereextraordinary circumstances exist.

In the instant case, the petitioner submitted his explanation soon after he receivedthe show cause notice as well as the order of suspension. The first respondentcalled for a report from the second respondent and the report has been submittednearly three months ago. There does not exist any justification for continuing thesuspension for such a long time. If the first respondent is of the view that it takessome more time for passing final orders against the petitioner, he could haverevoked the suspension.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the order of suspensionpassed against the petitioner is set aside. It is, however, left open to the firstrespondent to pass final orders against the petitioner duly taking into account theexplanation submitted by the petitioner as well as the report called for from thesecond respondent. No order as to costs.

________________

29-12-2004

Note: Issue C.C. by three days.(B/0)

kdl

To

1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram, Anantapur District.

2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Settur Mandal, Anantapur District.

3 Two CCs to the Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, A.P.High Court Buildings,Hyderabad (OUT).Hyderabad (OUT).

4 Two CD copies.