Telangana High Court
WP/27441/2005 of Ch. Venkaiah S/o Kasaiah Vs District Collector, Prakasam on 26 December 2005
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No. 27441 of 2005 Between: Ch. Venkaiah ..... PETITIONER AND District Collector, Prakasam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FIVE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAHWRIT PETITION No. 27441 of 2005
Between:
Ch. Venkaiah
AND
District Collector, Prakasam District,Ongole and 5 others
..... PETITIONER
.....RESPONDENTS
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
Seeking a Mandamus, declaring the proceedings dated 25.11.2005 inRc.CS2/3780/2005 passed by the 1[st] respondent thereby staying operation of orderdated 29.09.2005 in Rc.CS2/2652/2004 passed by the 2[nd] respondent, as illegaland arbitrary, the present writ petition is filed.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader forCivil Supplies.
The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer of Katakanipalli village, Dornala Mandal ofPrakasam District. It is stated that basing on the report of the Food Inspector,Markapuram, dated 07.07.2004, alleging that the petitioner has not distributed rice toeight cardholders and failed to produce renewal of authorization at the time ofinspection and also he has been distributing less quantity of essential commodities,the authorization of the petitioner was suspended and immediately one Mr.DandaVenkateswara Reddy is appointed to distribute the essential commodities, byproceedings dated 15.07.2004 of the 3[rd] respondent.
A perusal of the order of the 3[rd] respondent dated 15.07.2004 goes to show that it isnot an order made pending enquiry and the dealership of the petitioner has beensuspended. When the words ‘pending enquiry’ are not mentioned, it is assumed andpresumed that the said order is a final order. Admittedly, the petitioner has beensuspended without any specific allegation and he has been suspended on thegeneral and vague allegations. As against the said order, the petitioner filed anappeal before the 2[nd] respondent and the 2[nd] respondent by order dated 29.09.2005, stating that the period of suspension isnot indicated in the order dated 15.07.2004 and therefore, the period of suspensionis to be treated as a substantive penalty, and accordingly, set aside the order ofsuspension. As against the said order dated 29.09.2005, respondents 5 and 6 filedrevision before the 1[st] respondent. It is stated that the petitioner also filed caveat on 22.10.2005. But in spite of filing of a caveat, without hearing the petitioner and without giving any noticeto the petitioner, at the instance of third parties, the 1[st] respondent-revisionalauthority granted stay of operation of the order of the appellate authority dated29.09.2005.
I am of the opinion that the order of the revisional authority in staying the order of theappellate authority, without hearing the petitioner and without dealing with any of thecontentions raised in the caveat application, is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable.Admittedly, the order of suspension is made as a measure of substantivepunishment, and therefore, the appellate authority has rightly set aside the samestating that the said order has been passed based on vague and unspecifiedallegations.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated25.11.2005, staying the order of the appellate authority dated 29.09.2005, is setaside, and the 1[st] respondent may issue a notice to the petitioner as well as to therevision petitioners, and dispose of the revision itself, in accordance with law. Tillthen, the petitioner is permitted to distribute the essential commodities, as a fair priceshop dealer of Katakanipalli village, Dornala Mandal of Prakasam District.
With the above observations, the Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs.
Dated: 26.12.2005
Dsr
________________
V.ESWARAIAH,J