Telangana High Court
WP/41164/2014 of G. Shasidhar, Vs The State of Andhra pradesh, on 31 December 2014
SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.41164 of 2014 Dated: 31.12.2014 Between: G.Shasidhar .. Petitioner and The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. .. Respondents Counsel for the petitioner:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.41164 of 2014
Dated: 31.12.2014
Between:
G.Shasidhar
.. Petitioner
andThe State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by itsPrincipal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department,Secretariat, Hyderabadand others. .. Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mrs. Hemalatha Counsel for the respondents : AGP for Civil Supplies (AP)
The court 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:
This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside proceedingsin RC.No.1375/2014E dated 09.10.2014 of respondent No.2, whereby hehas suspended the petitioner’s fair price shop authorisation.
A perusal of the impugned order shows that no specific allegationshave been referred in the order, except making a reference to thepurported report of respondent No.3. Indeed, this Court has held that theaction of suspension being extreme in nature, the appointing authorityshall not resort to such action, unless the nature of the allegations is soserious that it is not desirable to continue the fair price shop dealer tillcompletion of enquiry and passing of a final order. (See K.Nirmala V.Revenue Divisional Officer, Anatapur[[1]],Thyrumala Setty Phanindra
V. District Collector (CS), Guntur District and others[[2]]and in WritPetition No.25823 of 2014 and batch, dated 07.10.2014). Unless theappointing authority refers to the nature of the allegations and records hissatisfaction that the continuance of dealer is not in public interest, anorder of suspension cannot be suspended.
As the impugned order is not only vague, but the same is shorn ofany details regarding the nature of the allegations, the same is set aside.Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to continue the petitioner as fairprice shop dealer pending enquiry, if any.
The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.
As a sequel to the allowing of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.51543of 2014, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of asinfructuous.
_____________________
31.12.2014v v
[1]2013 (1) ALT 339[2]2013 (5) ALT 237
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J