Telangana High Court
WP/41200/2014 of P.Sree Ram Murthy Vs The State of A.P., on 31 December 2014
SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.41200 of 2014 Dated: 31.12.2014 Between: P.Sree Ram Murthy .. Petitioner and The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. .. Respondents Counsel for the
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.41200 of 2014
Dated: 31.12.2014
Between:
P.Sree Ram Murthy
.. Petitioner
andThe State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by itsPrincipal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department,Secretariat, Hyderabadand others.
.. Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.Taddi Nageswara Rao 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.717/2014 CSDT dated 20.11.2014 of respondent No.3.
A perusal of the impugned proceedings shows that the petitioner’sfair price shop authorisation has been suspended on the followingcharges:
“Charge-1: That the F.P.Shop dealer has distributedlesser weighment to Cardholders. Thus it is clearlyestablished that the F.P.Shop dealer is resorting indiversion of Rice to open market and indulging inclandestine business and contravened the provisions ofClause 17(b), 17(c) of A.P. State Public DistributionSystem Control Order 2008.
Charge-2: That the F.P. Shop dealer has not distributedP.D.S. Rice properly to the death & migratedUnits/Cardholders and diverting the essentialcommodities to the Black market and thus and violatedCl.17(b), 17(c).
Charge-3: That the F.P.Shop dealer has failed tomaintain records properly and violated the Cl.22(viii) ofA.P.State Public Distribution System Control Order,2008.”
From the above-reproduced charges, it is evident that they are asvague as vagueness could be. Respondent No.3 has not given thedetails with respect to how many cardholders the commodities weresupplied with short weighment and to what extent was not explainedunder charge No.1. Similarly, as regards charge No.2, the very framing ofcharge is highly defective, as it gives out the meaning that the petitionerwas supposed to distribute PDS rice even to dead and migrated persons.Charge No.3 is also absolutely vague.
Indeed, this Court has held that the action of suspension beingextreme in nature, the appointing authority shall not resort to such action,unless the nature of the allegations is so serious that it is not desirable tocontinue the fair price shop dealer till completion of enquiry and passingof 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 Writ Petition No.25823 of 2014 andbatch, dated 07.10.2014). Unless the appointing authority refers to thenature of the allegations and records his satisfaction that the continuanceof dealer is not in public interest, the action of suspension cannot beresorted to. As the impugned order fails to satisfy the principles laid downin the above-mentioned judgments, the same cannot be sustained.
Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petitionis allowed.
As a sequel to the allowing of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.51582of 2014, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of asinfructuous.
31.12.2014v v
_____________________
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
[1]2013 (1) ALT 3392013 (1) ALT 339
[2]2013 (5) ALT 2372013 (5) ALT 237