Telangana High Court
WP/25094/2004 of M.Suseela Vs Joint Collector, on 31 December 2004
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 25094 of 2004 Between: M.Suseela, W/o G.Bheemanjaneyulu R/o Polamagripalli
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO : 25094 of 2004
Between:
M.Suseela, W/o G.Bheemanjaneyulu
R/o Polamagripalli Village, Seetharamapuram mandal, Nellore District.
AND
..... PETITIONER
1 Joint Collector, Nellore,
Nellore District.
2 Revenue Divisional Officer Kavali,
Nellore District.
3 Mandal Revenue Officer Seetharampuram , Mandal, Nellore 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 pleased toIssue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamusunder Art. 226 of Constitution of india, declaring the order passed by the 1strespondent in his proceedings Rc.E.691/2004 dt. 25/11/2004 rejecting stay pendingthe appeal filed by the petitioner U/S 20(2) of AP. Public Distribution control order,2001, against the order of the 2nd respondent in his proceedings Rc.J.3374/2004 dt.27/10/2004 placing the petitioner under suspension on trivial grounds as illegal,arbitrary, unjust and without jurisdiction, set aside the same and stay the operation ofthe order of suspension dt. 27/10/2004 pending the appeal before the 1strespondent.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.SRIDHAR REDDY
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES
The Court at the admission stage made the following :
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.
ORDER:
The petitioner was appointed as a Fair Price Shop Dealer. Her authorization wassuspended by the 2[nd] respondent through order, dated 27.10.2004. The allegationagainst the petitioner is that she has supplied certain quantities of rice to thecardholders without coupons. Further allegation is that she did not settle the accountfor the rice meant for ‘food for work’. On that basis, an inference was drawn that shediverted the essential commodities to black-market. The petitioner preferred anappeal before the 1[st] respondent. She also filed an application for grant of stay. The1[st] respondent rejected the application for stay through order, dated 25.11.2004.Hence, this writ petition.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for CivilSupplies.
The observation made by the 1[st] respondent in relation to the application for grant ofstay reads thus:
“this appeal is taken on file but interim stay has not been granted by thisCourt”.
The rest of the order deals with the reference to the factum of the appeal and callingfor records from the 2[nd] respondent. The very purpose of conferring power on anappellate authority to pass interim order is to examine the matter and consider thefeasibility of granting interim orders to protect the interest of the parties. If theauthority is not inclined to pass interim orders, a semblance of reasoning needs tobe given. Rejection of the application in the manner referred to above does not conform to the ordinary tenets of exercise of appellate power.
The main allegation against the petitioner is that she supplied rice to certaincardholders without there being any coupons. It is not as if she supplied rice toanyone beyond their entitlement. It is not indicated as to when the petitioner wasrequired to furnish the register in relation to rice meant for ‘food for work’. In fact, ashow cause notice was issued on the same day i.e.27.10.2004.
Conclusion
One basic infirmity with the order of suspension is that it was not indicated thereinthat it is a measure pending enquiry. Though inference can be drawn that it is ameasure pending enquiry from the fact that a show cause notice was issued on thesame day, the omission to indicate the same in the order of suspension becomessignificant for the reason that Clause 5(4) of the A.P.Public Distribution SystemControl Order, 2001, mandates that before an order suspending or cancelling thedealership is passed, an enquiry has to be held. Admittedly, no such enquiry wasconducted before the impugned order was passed.
For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is disposed of and the order ofsuspension, dated 27.10.2004, passed by the 2[nd] respondent shall remain stayed,pending disposal of the appeal by the 1[st] respondent. There shall be no order as tocosts.
Jsu
31.12.2004
___________
To
1 Joint Collector, Nellore,
Nellore District.
2 Revenue Divisional Officer Kavali,
Nellore District.
3 Mandal Revenue Officer Seetharampuram , Mandal, Nellore District. Nellore District.
4 2CCs to the G.P for Civil Supplies, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad(O.U.T).
5 2CD copies