Telangana High Court
WP/33726/2010 of Smt. Tavva Saraswathi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its on 31 December 2010
MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition Nos.33726, 33740 & 33773 of 2010 DT.31.12.2010 Between: Smt.Tavva Saraswathi … Petitioner (W.P.No.33726 of 2010) And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary Department of Civil Supplies, Secretariat, Hyderabad and
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.
Conclusion
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
Writ Petition Nos.33726, 33740 & 33773 of 2010
DT.31.12.2010
Between:
Smt.Tavva Saraswathi
And
… Petitioner(W.P.No.33726 of 2010)
The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal SecretaryDepartment of Civil Supplies, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others … Respondents(W.P.No.33726 of 2010)
Counsel for the Petitioner:Sri Venkateswara Rao Gudapati Counsel for respondent: AGP for Civil SuppliesThe Court made the following ORDER:
ORDER:
In these writ petitions, the petitioners, who are fair price shopdealers under suspension, felt aggrieved by the orders of the RevenueDivisional Officer, Vizianagaram (primary authority) and the JointCollector, Vizianagaram (appellate authority), whereby theirauthorizations were suspended and confirmed in appeal respectively.
At the hearing, Sri Venkateswara Rao Gudapati, learnedcounsel representing the petitioners in the writ petitions, limited hissubmissions to two aspects, namely, (1) the exhaustive findings of theappellate authority, while the enquiry into the charges against the petitioners is pending, have the effect of finally adjudicating on thecharges even before a full-fledged enquiry has been conducted by theprimary authority and (2) pending enquiry, the appellate authority isseeking to appoint DWCRA groups as permanent dealers.
After hearing the learned Assistant Government Pleader forCivil Supplies, I find justification in both these grievances. With regardto the first submission of the learned counsel, though the appellateauthority has given detailed reasons in order to confirm the order of theprimary authority suspending the petitioners’ authorizations, since theenquiry is pending, they are required to be treated as prima faciefindings intended to deal with the appeal filed against the order ofsuspension, pending enquiry. Therefore, the primary authority shallnot feel bound by those findings while passing a final order aftercompletion of the enquiry.
As regards the second contention, the learned counsel for thepetitioners has drawn my attention to a news item filed as materialpaper in the writ petitions, wherein it was stated that the appellateauthority has decided to appoint DWCRA groups as dealers onpermanent basis. It is not in dispute that the enquiry into theallegations made against the petitioners is pending and theauthorizations are merely suspended. Unless and until theauthorizations are cancelled after enquiry, no permanent vacanciesarise for appointment of third parties as dealers.
As such the Joint Collector, Vizianagaram and the RevenueDivisional Officer, Vizianagaram are directed not to take any steps tomake permanent appointments in respect of three shops, namely, shopNos.23, 48 and 14 of Vizianagaram, until final orders are passed afterenquiry.
In the result, while declining to interfere with the order of suspension as confirmed in appeal, the writ petitions are disposed ofsubject to the above directions.
As a sequel to disposal of the writ petitions,W.P.M.P.Nos.42728, 42750 and 42786 of 2010 filed by the petitionersfor interim relief are disposed of as infructuous.
Date: 31.12.2010VGB
(C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J)