Telangana High Court
WP/24963/2004 of T. Purnamma, Vs The 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 : 24963 of 2004 Between: T. Purnamma, W/o T. Nagayya, R/o Rukminipuram Village and
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 REDDYWRIT PETITION NO : 24963 of 2004
Between:
T. Purnamma, W/o T. Nagayya,
R/o Rukminipuram Village and Post, Machavaram Mandal, Narasaraopet Division, Guntur District.
AND
..... PETITIONER
1 The Joint Collector, Guntur , Guntur District.
2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet, Guntur District.
3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Machavaram Mandal, Guntur 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 ofMandamus declaring the under of the 1st respondent herein in Appeal Case No.57/2004 dt. 11-11-2004 filed by the petitioner pending without finalisation before the1st respondent and proceedings of the 2nd respondent Rc.No. 2055/2004-B, dt. 6-11-2004 susending the licence of the petitioner as illegal, void, arbitrary, unjust andconsequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as Fair Price ShopDealer of Rukminipuram village, Machavaram Mandal, Guntur District, pendingdisposal of the appeal of the petitioner before the 1st respondent.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR A.SAMIR KUMAR REDDY
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES
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 in the year 1999 forRukminipalem Village, Machavaram Mandal, Guntur District. Earlier her husbandwas functioning as Dealer for the same shop since 1985 and he died in December,1999. The petitioner states that there were never any complaints against herhusband or herself for all these years. The 2[nd] respondent suspended herauthorization through order, dated 06.11.2004 on the allegation that the petitionerfailed to produce adequate number of coupons for the rice and kerosene distributedby her. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of suspension before the1[st] respondent on 06.11.2004. She also filed an application for grant of stay. It isrepresented that no orders have been passed by the 1[st] respondent so far either inthe appeal or in the stay petition and she seeks appropriate relief from this Court.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for CivilSupplies.
The petitioner availed the remedy of appeal soon after she was served with theorder of suspension. She also filed an application for stay. By its very nature, anapplication for stay is required to be considered without much loss of time. If suchapplications are kept pending for months together, the very purpose of filing ofappeal may be defeated. This Court is of the view that the 1[st] respondent ought tohave considered and passed appropriate orders in the application for stay.
The petitioner and her family were depending upon the Fair Price Shop almost forthe past two decades. It is stated that no complaints were made against thepetitioner or her husband. The 3[rd] respondent caused a surprised inspection on27.10.2004. The petitioner was not given an opportunity to explain about anydiscrepancies. On the basis of the observations made on the spot the authorizationwas suspended. The main allegation against the petitioner is that she did not furnish the coupons for the entire distributed quantity. There is no reference as to whetherany spot explanation was sought from the petitioner. The whole process has takenplace on the strength of a unilateral observation. Suspension beyond a particulartime may tend to become a penalty. It is stated that the 1[st] respondent has notissued any show cause notice as yet.
Conclusion
Under these circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that the order ofsuspension, dated 06.11.2004 shall remain stayed, pending disposal of the appealby the 1[st] respondent and the petitioner shall be entitled to function as Fair PriceShop Dealer. There shall no order as to costs.
Note: Issue C.C. by tomorrow.
(B/o)
Jsu
31.12.2004
____________
To
1 The Joint Collector, Guntur , Guntur District.
2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet, Guntur District.
3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Machavaram Mandal, Guntur District.
4 Two CCs to the G.P for Revenue, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad(O.U.T).
5 2CD copies.