WP/24153/2004 of M. Jayaramulu S/o Late M. Venkataramaiah Vs The Joint Collector, on 29 December 2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

WRIT PETITION NO : 24153 of 2004

Between:

M. Jayaramulu S/o Late M. Venkataramaiah, Fair Price Shop Dealer,R/o D. NO. 1-67, Chilamkur Village, Pamur Mandal, Prakasam District

..... PETITIONER

AND

1 The Joint Collector, Prakasam District at Ongole 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur, Prakasam District 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Pamur Mandal, Prakasam District

.....RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased toissue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ ofMandamus declaring the order of the 2nd respondent issued in his proceedings inRc. F/2697/2004 dated 4-11-2004 suspending the permanent dealershipauthorization of the petitioner of Fair Price Shop of Chilamkur Village, PamurMandal, Prakasam District and consequential proceedings of the 1st respondent inRcc. S2/5034/2004 dated 5-12-2004 rejecting the grant of stay petition filed alongwith the appeal on the opertionof the Order of the 2nd respondent dated 4-11-2004suspending the authorisation of fair Price shop dealership of the petitioner asarbitrary, malafide, illegal, improper unjust, unconstitutional and in violation ofprinciples of natural justice and consequently set a side the same thereby enablingthe petitioner to continue as permanent fair shop dealer of Chilamkur Village, PamurMandal, Prakasam District.

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.RAJANIKANTH JWALA

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

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

The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer of Chilamkuru village of Prakasham District.Through proceedings dated 04-11-2004, the second respondent suspended theauthorisation of the petitioner on the ground that 56 quintals of rice and 677 liters ofkerosene were seized from him and the proceedings under Section 6-A of theEssential Commodities Act (for short ‘the Act’) were initiated. The petitionerpreferred an appeal before the first respondent, together with an application for grantof stay. Alleging that no orders have been passed by the first respondent in the staypetition, he filed W.P.No.22073 of 2004. The writ petition was disposed of on 01-12-2004 directing the first respondent to pass appropriate orders in the application forstay, within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of the order. Thereafter, thefirst respondent passed an order dated 05-12-2004 refusing to grant stay. The sameis challenged in this writ petition.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for CivilSupplies.

The second respondent suspended the authorisation of the petitioner on the groundthat certain irregularities are noticed in respect of his fair price shop and thatproceedings were initiated under Section 6-A of the Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the Judgment of this Court inGUNDALA RAMA MURTHY v THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VIZIANAGARAMand contends that mere pendency of proceedings under Section 6-A of the Actcannot constitute the basis for suspension of an authorisation.

It is true that in the Judgment referred to above, Hon’ble Sri Justice P. VenkataramaReddy, as he then was, held that the authorisation of a dealer cannot be suspendedsimply on the ground that proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act are initiated. Itwas held that the appointing authority has to apply his mind independently. In theinstant case, the second respondent discussed the matter at length and made a reference to the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act. Hence, the ratio laid inthe case referred to above does not apply to the facts of this case.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition isdisposed of directing the first respondent to pass appropriate orders, after giving anopportunity to the petitioner in the proceedings initiated under Section 6-A of the Actas well as the appeal preferred by him, within a period of four weeks from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.

_________________

29-12-2004

kdl

To

1 The Joint Collector, Prakasam District at Ongole 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur, Prakasam District 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Pamur Mandal, Prakasam District 4 Two CCs to the Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, A.P.High Court Buildings,Hyderabad (OUT).Hyderabad (OUT).

5 Two CD copies.