WP/24219/2004 of E. Narayana Reddy S/o Bala Venkata Reddy Vs The Joint Collector, Kadapa District 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 SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

WRIT PETITION NO : 24219 of 2004

Between:

E. Narayana Reddy S/o Bala Venkata Reddy R/o Chinnasinganapalli Village, Duvvur Mandal, Kadapa District

..... PETITIONER

AND

1 The Joint Collector, Kadapa District at Kadapa 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Jammalamadugu, Kadapa District 3 The mandal Revenue Officer Duvvur Mandal, Kadapa District 4 Smt.G. Jayalakshmi Joint Collector Kadapa District at Kadapa 5 Sri G. Venkatesam Revenue Divisional Officer Jammalamadugu, Kadapa 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 a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ ofMandamus declaring the impugned ref B/750/2004, dt 17-7-2004 suspendingthe authorization of the Petitioner without conducting any enquiry or notice andfurther action of the 1st respondent in rejecting the appeal filed by the petitionervide proceedings L.Dis.No. I(3)/3175/2004 dt 10-11-2004 as highly illegal,arbitrary and violative of Art 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India andconsequently set a side the same and pass such other order or orders in theinterest of justice.

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.V.SHIVAJI

Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 to 3: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

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

Petitioner is a fair price shop dealer of Chinnasinganapalli village, Duvvurmandal, Kadapa district. His authorization was suspended by the secondrespondent through proceedings dated 17.07.2004, on certain allegations.Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.14951of 2004. The writ petition was disposed of on 28.09.2004 leaving it open to thepetitioner to avail the remedy of appeal. Accordingly, the petitioner preferred anappeal before the first respondent. Through his order dated 10.11.2004, the firstrespondent disposed of the appeal directing the second respondent to passorders in the proceedings initiated against the petitioner within four weeks. Thepetitioner feels aggrieved by the same.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charges levelled against thepetitioner are general and vague in nature and there was no justification for thesecond respondent in suspending his authorization. He also contends that thefirst respondent did not apply his mind to the facts of the case and exceptstating that the appeal is disposed of, he did not record any finding. It is alsohis contention that the second respondent did not take any steps to dispose ofthe proceedings before him for the last five months, and in view of theJudgment of this Court in Joint Collector, Kurnool v. A. Neelima, suspensionbeyond 90 days cannot be sustained.

Learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, on the other hand, submits thatthe first respondent did not intend to interfere with the order of suspension, which is a temporary measure and instead, had directed the second respondentto dispose of the main proceedings and no exception can be taken to the same.

Earlier, when the petitioner approached this Court, aggrieved by the order ofsuspension, the writ petition was disposed of leaving it open to him to avail theremedy of appeal. Accordingly, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Clause20 of the A.P. Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001. The appeal wasdisposed of by the first respondent through order dated 10.11.2004. A readingof the same discloses that the first respondent was not clear as to whether hewas dealing with the application for stay or the appeal. He directed the secondrespondent to dispose of the matter within four weeks.

A Division Bench of this Court, in the case referred to above held thatsuspension of dealership for an indefinite period, cannot be sustained. It washeld that in the ordinary course of things, an order of suspension ofauthorization cannot be continued beyond 90 days.

In the present case, the second respondent has chosen to suspend theauthorization of the petitioner within one day from the date of receipt of thereport from the Mandal Revenue Officer. Having suspended the authorization,he just kept the matter aside and has not chosen to pass final orders. Even thefiling of a writ petition by the petitioner and disposal of the appeal by the firstrespondent did not have any impact upon him. The principle laid down by thisCourt in the Judgment referred to above squarely gets attracted. Thesuspension of the authorization of a dealer for such a continuous period, tendsto become a penalty. Further, the allegations against the petitioner are not soserious as to warrant the continued suspension for such a long time.

Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the order of suspension dated17.07.2004 passed against the petitioner is set aside. It is, however, left opento the second respondent to pass orders in the proceedings initiated against thepetitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.

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

Issue CC in two days.

(BO)

ksld

To

1 The Joint Collector, Kadapa District at Kadapa 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Jammalamadugu, Kadapa District 3 The mandal Revenue Officer Duvvur Mandal, Kadapa District 4 Two CCs. to the G.P. for Civil Supplies, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad (OUT)

5 Two CD copies.