WP/21325/2000 of UCHEVVU SUBBARAMI REDDY AND 2 ORS Vs DISST COLLECTOR CUDDAPAH AND 2 ORS on 7 November 2000

ORDER:

The Petitioner was appointed as a Fair Price shop dealer in the year 1990, forShop No.21 of Dumpagadapa village, Akividu Mandal. His authorization wassuspended by the second respondent, through his proceedings, dated 18.08.2004.Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent, togetherwith an application for grant of interim orders. The first respondent rejected theapplication through proceedings, dated 30.08.2004. The same is challenged in thiswrit petition, with a prayer for direction, to suspend the proceedings, dated18.8.2004, passed by the second respondent.

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

3. The first respondent rejected the application filed by the petitioner, for staying theoperation of the proceedings, dated 18.08.2004. A perusal of the said orderdiscloses that except stating that the appeal is taken on file, rejecting the staypetition, not a semblance of reason is stated by the first respondent, as to whatweighed with him, to pass such an order. It discloses that the order was passed in aroutine manner, without application of mind. When specific power is conferred uponthe first respondent to pass interim orders, pending disposal of appeal, it is requiredof him, to state reasons as to why the application for interim order is rejected. Therejection of an application, without stating any reasons, reduces the exercise ofstatutory power, into an empty formality.

4. A perusal of the order, dated 18.08.2004, passed by the second respondent, the appointing authority, prima facie, discloses that he did nothing more, than ratifyingthe action taken by the third respondent. Even before the authorization of thepetitioner was suspended, the third respondent had entrusted the distribution ofessential commodities to another agency, and requested the second respondent totake further action. The nature of application of mind by the second respondent isevident from the following sentence occurring in that order.

“… It is also reported by the Mandal Revenue Officer that he made alternatearrangement by the F.P. Shop dealer of shop No.20 Cooperative Rural Bankof Dumpagadapa Village as additional Charge of shop 21 held bySri.M.Ramanjenyulu and requested to ratify his action. The Mandal RevenueOfficer, Akividu further requested that necessary action may be takenagainst the dealer.

In the circumstances reported by the Mandal Revenue Officer,Akividu, the authorization of the F.P shop dealer of Shop No.21, SriM.Ramanjaneyulu of Dumpagadapa village is hereby suspended pendingdisposal of the 6-A case filed against him and pending before the JointCollector, West Godavari”.

5. Even the material placed before the second respondent by the third respondentwas nothing, but a general, non-specific and vague statement, alleging that thepetitioner indulged in clandestine business. Neither any instances were referred to,nor any quantities of the commodities were recovered. Such an exercise cannot becountenanced in law. The second respondent had virtually approved the steps takenby the third respondent, without examining or verifying the matter.

6. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The order, dated30.08.2004 passed by the first respondent is set aside. Further, the order, dated18.8.2004 passed by the second respondent shall stand suspended, pendingdisposal of the appeal, by the first respondent. There shall be no order as to costs.

Sd/-

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

Dated: 24th November, 2004

Note: - Issue C.C in three days

(B/o)RAR

To

1) Joint Collector Eluru, West Godavari District.

2) Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsapur, West Godavari District.

3) Mandal Revenue Officer, Akividu Mandal, West Godavari District.

4) 2 CCs to G.P for Civil Supplies, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad(OUT)

5) 2 CD copies