WP/24844/2004 of A. Gangaiah, Vs The Jt. Collector, on 30 December 2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDYWRIT PETITION NO : 24844 of 2004

Between:

A. Gangaiah, S/o. Ankaiah, Prakasam District.

Padmati naidupalem Village, Cheemakurthi Mandal,

AND

..... PETITIONER

1 The Joint Collector, Prkasam District, Ongole.

2 The revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, Prakasam, District.

3 The mandal Revenue Officr, Cheemakurthi Mandal, Cheemakurthi, Prakasam District. 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 will be pleasedto Issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ ofMandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent not passing any orders onthe stay application file by the petitioner in appeal filed by him against the orderof the Second respondent dt. 5.12.2004 passed in D.Dis.838/2004, pendingappeal on 23.12.2004 and consequently to suspend the order of the SecondRespondent passed in his proceedings D.Dis.838/2004 dt. 5.12.2004 pendingdisposal of the appeal against the said order before the 1[st] Respondent filed bythe petitioner and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court maydeem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.PEDDA BABU

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

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

The dealership as well as the authorization of the petitioner were cancelled bythe second respondent through proceedings dated 05.12.2004. Against thesame, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent, togetherwith an application for grant of stay. His grievance is that the first respondenthas not passed any orders either in the stay application or in the appeal, andseeks appropriate directions in this regard.

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

Admittedly, the petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of cancellation,together with an application for stay. Except where the orders of cancellationare passed either by an authority not vested with the power or in violation ofprinciples of natural justice, this Court does not interfere with the same,particularly when the appeal is pending. The question as to whether the chargeson the basis of which the dealership of the petitioner was cancelled are true ornot, or whether the order of cancellation suffers from any illegality, needs to beconsidered by the first respondent. Permitting a dealer, whose authorization iscancelled, to operate during the pendency of the appeal, is almost rare.

Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to passappropriate orders in the appeal itself within six weeks from the date of receiptof a copy of this order. It is further directed that the second respondent shallnot appoint any dealer on regular basis in the vacancy caused on account ofcancellation of the dealership of the petitioner, till the disposal of the appeal.There shall be no order as to costs.

-----------------------

30.12.2004ksld

To

1 The Joint Collector, Prkasam District, Ongole.

2 The revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, Prakasam, District.

3 The mandal Revenue Officr, Cheemakurthi Mandal, Cheemakurthi, Prakasam District. Prakasam District.

4 Two C.Cs. to the Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, High Court Buildings, A.P., Hyderabad, (OUT).

5 Two C.D. Copies.