Telangana High Court
WP/23194/2003 of A-A Tech Medical And Engineering Services, Vs Govt. of A.P., Rep. By its Principal Secretary, on 5 December 2003
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 23194 of 2004 Between: N.Bhaskara Rao, S/o. Rathaiah, Pedakakani Village &
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDYWRIT PETITION NO : 23194 of 2004
Between:
N.Bhaskara Rao, S/o. Rathaiah,
Pedakakani Village & Mandal, Guntur District.
..... PETITIONER
AND
1 The Joint Collector, Guntur, Guntur District.
2 Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur, Guntur District.
3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Pedakakani, 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 any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ ofmandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not completing the enquiryand passing of final orders as directed by the 1st respondent, Guntur, in ACDDis.No.37/2004 S7, dt.12-10-2004 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently set asidethe orders of proceedings of 2nd respondent in Rc.No.3710/04 B, dt.19-07-2004pending enquiry before the 2nd respondent.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.SRINIVAS
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 is a Fair Price Shop Dealer of Pedakakani Village and Mandal,Guntur District. The 2[nd] respondent suspended his authorization through order,dated 19.07.2004. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the1[st] respondent. He also filed an application seeking interim orders. The 1[st]respondent passed an order, dated 12.10.2004, directing the 2[nd] respondent to passorders within one month, without indicating as to whether the order of suspension isaffirmed or set aside. Hence, this writ petition.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for CivilSupplies.
The petitioner availed the remedy of appeal aggrieved by the order of suspension.The order passed by the first respondent on 12-10-2004 reads as under:
“Perused the records and grounds of the appeal petition, the appeal petition ishereby remanded to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur by directing him todispose the case within a month from the date of receipt of the order, as thedisciplinary proceedings are pending with the Revenue Divisional Officer,Guntur.
Accordingly, the appeal petition is disposed of at admission stage”
It does not disclose whether the order of suspension is affirmed or set aside. The firstrespondent failed to appreciate the importance of remand. An appellate authority can remand the proceedings to the original authority only when the order underappeal is set aside. The question of remanding the matter without setting aside theorder under appeal does not arise. Further, he did not undertake any discussion norrecorded any finding on the contentions urged by the petitioner. The remedy ofappeal provided for under the A.P.State Public Distribution System Control Order,2001, cannot be reduced to an empty formality. On merits also the allegationsagainst the petitioner are not so serious as to warrant suspension. The truth orotherwise of the allegations against the petitioner can be gone into in the enquirythat may have to be conducted.
Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the order, dated 19.07.2004, suspending theauthorization is set aside. It is directed that the petitioner shall be entitled to continueas Dealer, pending the proceedings before the 2[nd] respondent. There shall be noorder as to costs.
Note: Issue C.C. in three days(B/o)Jsu
15.12.2004
______________
To
1 The Joint Collector, Guntur, Guntur District.
2 Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur, Guntur District.
3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Pedakakani, Guntur District.
4 2CCs to the Government Pleader for civil Supplies, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. (O.U.T)
5 2CD copies.