WP/27813/2005 of Nallalpaneni Venkataratnam, Vs The District Collector, on 28 December 2005

ORDER:

The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer in respect of Modepalli Village, AddankiMandal, Guntur District. The 3[rd] respondent appointed her as permanent dealer inthe year 1996 and the authorization was given to that effect. While so, the 3[rd]respondent issued show cause notice dated 08-04-2005 by initiating fourirregularities against the petitioner and the same was served on her on 19-04-2005and on the same day, petitioner submitted her explanation. But without giving anyopportunity to the petitioner to submit her explanation, the Revenue DivisionalOfficer on the date of issuance of show cause notice itself, issued suspension ordersby suspending her authorization for a period of three months or till the finalization ofdisciplinary proceedings vide proceedings in RCC/539/2005, dated 08-04-2005.

Questioning the order of suspension made by the Revenue Divisional Officer,dated 08-04-2005, petitioner filed an appeal before the 2[nd] respondent/JointCollector, who is the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority after consideringthe grounds of appeal, and after perusing the material, set aside the orders passedby the 3[rd] respondent and permitted the petitioner to run the fair price shop and todistribute the essential commodities. Against the said order, respondents 5 and 6

have filed a revision before the Collector, who is the Revisional Authority, and theRevisional authority by its order dated 01-12-2005 granted exparte stay of the ordersof the Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 08-04-2005 without hearing the petitioner inspite of filing of Caveat petition by the petitioner.

In the instant case, three months period is already over long back and havingissued a show cause notice dated 08-04-2005 and having received the explanationof the petitioner on 20-04-2005, I am of the opinion that there cannot be anyjustification on the part of the 3[rd] respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer in notpassing final orders after conducting enquiry. However, when the petitioner filed anappeal aggrieved by the suspension and when the Appellate Authority after hearingthe aggrieved parties and the petitioner, allowed the appeal setting aside thesuspension order, the revisional authority ought not to have granted the stay for aperiod of two months from the date of disposal of the appeal. Pursuant to the ordersof the Appellate Authority, petitioner has been supplying the essential commoditiesto the cardholders without any complaints whatsoever.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the stay granted bythe District Collector on 01-12-2005 is set aside and the Revisional Authority isdirected to consider and dispose of the revision after giving reasonable opportunityto the petitioner as well as to the revision petitioners. But, however, in respect of thepending of the revision petition, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole beforewhom disciplinary proceedings are pending, is directed to consider the explanationof the petitioner and pass final orders after giving reasonable opportunity to thepetitioner pursuant to the show cause notice dated 08-04-2005 within six weeksfrom the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.

Dated: 28-12-2005

Note: Issue C.C. by three days.

B/o

___________________V. ESWARAIAH, J.