Telangana High Court
WP/25107/2004 of N. Saraswathi Devi, Vs Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal, 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 : 25107 of 2004 Between: N. Saraswathi Devi, W/o. Late Narasimhulu, Vanikamdinne
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 : 25107 of 2004
Between:
N. Saraswathi Devi, W/o. Late Narasimhulu, Vanikamdinne Village, Sirivel Mandal, Kurnool District.
AND
..... PETITIONER
1 Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal, Kurnool District.
2 Joint Collector, Kurnool District, Kurnool.
3 Mandal Revenue Officer, Sirivel, Kurnool 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 preferably in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaringthe action of the 2nd respondent in not passing any orders against the proceedingRc.E.No.986 of 2004 by the 1st respondent dt. 5.10.2004 including the stayapplication as arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable and pas such other orders as maybe just and proper.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.VENKATARAO
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 husband of the petitioner was functioning as Fair price Shop Dealer for the past20 years. He died on 13.05.2001. The 2[nd] respondent appointed the petitioner asDealer through proceedings, dated 06.02.2002. He suspended her authorisationvide order, dated 05.10.2004 on the allegation that the petitioner is selling theessential commodities at higher rates and there are certain discrepancies as tomaintenance of stock by her. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order ofsuspension to the 1[st] respondent and filed an application for stay along with it. Hergrievance is that the 1[st] respondent has not passed any orders on the application forstay so far. She seeks orders from this Court to enable her to function as Fair PriceShop Dealer, till the appeal filed by her is disposed of.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for CivilSupplies.
Petitioner states that she presented an appeal before the 1[st] respondent on23.10.2004. It is more than two months that the petitioner filed the appeal before the1[st] respondent and if no interim orders are passed within that time, the very purposeof filing of the appeal or for that matter the application for stay stands defeated.
It is true that the suspension ordered against the petitioner is pending enquiry. But,unless the application for stay is considered and disposed of within a reasonabletime, the suspension tends to become a penalty by itself.
The petitioner was not issued any notice before her authorization was suspendednor her version was ascertained, before the Mandal Revenue Officer has recorded afinding that the petitioner diverted certain stocks to black-market. The observation ison the basis of certain presumptions and imaginations. It is not as if the stocksreferred to in the order were found with any individuals in contravention of theprovisions. The respondents could have clarified their doubts by requiring thepetitioner to explain.
For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that the order ofsuspension passed against the petitioner shall remain stayed, pending disposal ofthe appeal by the 1[st] respondent. There shall be no order as to costs.
31.12.2004
____________
Jsu
To
1 Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal, Kurnool District.
2 Joint Collector, Kurnool District, Kurnool.
3 Mandal Revenue Officer, Sirivel, Kurnool District.
4 2CCs to the G.P for Civil Supplies, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad(O.U.T).
5 2CD copies