Telangana High Court
WP/24463/2004 of Nadipilli Veerunaidu, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer, on 28 December 2004
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 24463 of 2004 Between: Nadipilli Veerunaidu, S/o.(late) Kanakayya Naidu, Occ:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO : 24463 of 2004
Between:
Nadipilli Veerunaidu, S/o.(late) Kanakayya Naidu,Occ: F.P. Shop Dealer, F.P.Shop No.37,Tummapala Village, Anakapalli Mandal,Visakhapatnam District.
AND
..... PETITIONER
1. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam.2. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Anakapalli,Visakhapatnam.
.....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 of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaringthe Proceedings issued by the 1[st] respondent vide R.C.No.4461/2004/C,Dt.10.12.2004 as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, violation of Principles of Natural Justiceand against the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Public Distribution SystemControl Order, 2001 and consequently direct the respondents to continue thepetitioner as Fair Price Shop Dealer of Shop No.37 of Tummapala Village,Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.DEVANAND
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES
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.
ORAL ORDER:
Petitioner is a fair price shop dealer. His authorization was suspended by the firstrespondent through proceedings, dated 10.12.2004 on the ground that proceedingsunder Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) havebeen initiated against the petitioner. This writ petition is filed alleging that the firstrespondent did not apply his mind to the facts of the case, and through initiation ofproceedings under Section 6-A of the Act is one of the factors to be taken intoaccount by the appointing authority for ordering suspension of authorization,independent application of mind has to be there. Reliance is placed upon ajudgment of this Court in GUNDLA RAMA MURTHY V. THE DISTRICTCOLLOCTOR, VIZIANAGARAM.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader forCivil Supplies.
The first respondent suspended the authorization of the petitioner throughproceedings, dated 10-12-2004. The only basis for this is the report, dated 28-11-2004, said to have been submitted by the Deputy Tahsildar. It is observed thatproceedings under Section 6-A of the Act are initiated before the Joint Collector, onthe basis of the report of the Deputy Tahsildar. The first respondent did not refer toany act or omission on the part of the petitioner. On the other hand, he took the viewthat the allegations, referred to in the report, dated 28-11-2004, are proved. He hasvirtually rendered the result of the proceedings, be it those under Section 6-A of theAct, or the one to be initiated against the petitioner for cancellation of authorization, aforegone conclusion. Such a course of action is impermissible in law. The actualinvolvement of the petitioner has to be decided only after considering theexplanation submitted by him.
Further, this Court held in GUNDLA RAMA MURTHY’s case that initiation ofproceedings under Section 6-A of the Act, by itself cannot entail in automaticsuspension of the authorization and that the appointing authority has to apply itsmind, independently, to the facts of the case. The same applies to the case on hand.
Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of setting aside the order of suspension passedagainst the petitioner and that the petitioner shall be entitled to continue as fair priceshop dealer. It is, however, made clear that this order shall be without prejudice tothe proceedings that are said to have been initiated against the petitioner under Section 6-A of the Act, or those that may be initiated by the first respondent forcancellation of the dealership. No order as to costs.
28[th] December, 2004
____________________
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
Note: CC in 3 days.
B/o.
js.
To
1. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam.
2. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam.3. Two CCs to G.P. for Civil Supplies, High Court of A.P., Buildings,Hyderabad (OUT)3. Two CCs to G.P. for Civil Supplies, High Court of A.P., Buildings,Hyderabad (OUT)
4. Two CD Copies.