WP/24914/2004 of M. Aruna, Vs The Jt. Collector, on 30 December 2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

WRIT PETITION NO : 24914 of 2004

Between:

M. Aruna, \W/o. Prasad, Allur Mandal, Nellore District.

AND

..... PETITIONER

1 The Joint Collector, Nellore.

2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali, Nellore District.

3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Allur, Nellore 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 pleasedto Issue an order, direction or writ, more particularly one in the nature of writ ofMandamus declaring the order of the 2nd respondent passed in Rc.J.6386/2004dt. 18.12.2004 suspending the authorization of the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary,violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of A.P.Public Distribution System Control order, 2001 and also further declare theaction of the 1st respondent in not passing any orders on the stay petition filedalong with the appeal as illegal and arbitrary and set-aside the order of the 2ndrespondent and consequently direct the respondents to supply the essentialcommodities to the petitioner as usual and pass such order or orders.

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.SUDHAKAR REDDY

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

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

Petitioner is a fair price shop dealer of Allurpet village, Allur mandal, Nelloredistrict. When she was denied supplies of essential commodities, sheapproached this Court by filing W.P.No.23573 of 2004. The writ petition wasdisposed of on 17.12.2004 directing that the respondents shall supply theessential commodities to the petitioner as long as her authorization is in force.

The petitioner was served with an order dated 18.12.2004, whereunder herauthorization was suspended, on certain allegations. She preferred an appealbefore the first respondent, together with an application for stay. It isrepresented that the appellate authority has not passed any order in the staypetition and in the meanwhile, respondents 2 and 3 are taking steps to makealternative arrangements.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader forCivil Supplies.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order waspassed with an anterior date, after the order of this Court in W.P.No.23573 of2004 was produced before the second respondent. It is not possible to verifythe correctness of this allegation, at this stage.

Ordinarily, once an appeal, together with an application for stay, is preferred,this Court does not interfere, unless the appellate authority exercises itsdiscretion. However, in this matter, the fact that the petitioner was denied thesupplies of essential commodities even before an order of suspension waspassed, discloses that all is not well in the matter. A perusal of the order of suspension discloses that major discrepancies in the stock pointed out againstthe petitioner related to the year 2003-04. It is not as if the petitioner wasrequired to explain. All the allegations are unilateral in nature.

One strong factor, which weighs with this Court to enable the petitioner tofunction as a fair price shop dealer, is that the suspension is ordered almost asa measure of penalty and not as a measure pending enquiry. In his order, thesecond respondent did not state that the suspension is pending enquiry.Therefore, the procedure prescribed under clause 5(4) of the A.P. PublicDistribution System Control Order, 2001 ought to have been followed. Since thesame is not followed, the order is prima facie illegal.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is disposed of directing that theorder of suspension dated 18.12.2004 shall remain stayed and the petitionershall be entitled to function as a fair price shop dealer, till the first respondentdisposes of the appeal. There shall be no order as to costs.

---------------------

30.12.2004

Note:

Issue CC by tomorrow.

(BO)

ksld

To

1 The Joint Collector, Nellore.

2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali, Nellore District.

3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Allur, Nellore District.

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

5 Two C.D.Copies.