WP/25142/2004 of T. Subha, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer, on 31 December 2004

ORDER:

The petitioner was appointed as a Fair Price Shop Dealer for Shekkala Village ofGollapalli mandal, Karimnagar District, in the year 1999. On 23.12.2004, the 1[st]respondent issued a show cause notice requiring the petitioner to submit herexplanation, within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice, as to why theauthoristaion shall not be cancelled in view of the allegations referred to therein. Onthe same day, the 2[nd] respondent issued an order suspending the authorization ofthe petitioner. The petitioner challenges the order of suspension in this writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 1[st] respondent suspended theauthorisation of the petitioner, on the basis of a report of the 2[nd] respondent, allegingthat the petitioner had diverted 8.20 quintals of rice to black-market and that thestock register was not maintained from August 2004 onwards. He contends thatthere is no reference as to when the inspection is said to have taken place orwhether any verification was done before arriving at the conclusions. He alsosubmits that the order of suspension does not indicate that the suspension isordered as a measure pending enquiry and in that view of the matter, it ought tohave been preceded by an enquiry.

Learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, on the other hand, submits that thepetitioner can avail the remedy of appeal, instead of rushing to the Court straightaway.

It is true that the petitioner has an alternative remedy by way of appeal under Clause20 of the A.P.Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001, against an order ofsuspension. The occasion for the petitioner to approach this Court straight away had arisen because of the fact that the order of suspension contains several avermentsto the effect that the allegations against the petitioner are proved and that though theshow cause notice was issued on the same day directing submission of explanationwithin seven days, the suspension was resorted to.

Conclusion

The order of suspension as well as the show cause notice are issued on the basis ofa report, dated 22.12.2004, filed by the 1[st] respondent. The order does not disclosethat any inspection was done by the 2[nd] respondent or that he required the petitionerto furnish any information. He has straight away recorded findings to the effect thatthe petitioner had diverted rice to black-market and committed certain otherirregularities. Within one day, the 1[st] respondent issued a show cause notice andsuspended the authorization. Principles of fair play and equity demand that the 1[st]respondent should have waited for the period of one week for submission ofexplanation of the petitioner and then could have proceeded to pass orders afterconsidering the explanation that may be submitted by the petitioner. It is not as if thepetitioner is supplied the essential commodities through out the month, on everyday. The supplies to the dealer, who is the petitioner, take place once in a month.Nothing prevented the 1[st] respondent from withholding the stocks for a period of oneweek and to take necessary steps thereafter. From the purport and timings of theorder, this Court gains impression that the action was taken at the behest ofsomeone else. It is not a case where any stocks entrusted to the petitioner werefound with any third party in contravention of relevant provisions of law.

For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed and it is directed that the orderof suspension passed by the 1[st] respondent shall remain in abeyance, till heconsiders the explanation of the petitioner and passes appropriate orders, dulytaking the same into account. If the petitioner has not submitted her explanation, sheshall submit the same within five days from today. It shall be open to therespondents to withhold supplies to the petitioner for a period of ten days, duringwhich time, it shall be open to the 1[st] respondent to pass an order in pursuance ofthe show cause notice. If no orders are passed within that time, the petitioner shallbe supplied with the commodities. There shall be no order as to costs.

____________

Note:

Issue C.C. in two days.

(B/o)

Jsu

To

1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Jagtial, Karimnagar District.

2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Gollapalli Mandal, Karimnagar District.

3 2CCs to the G.P for Civil Supplies, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad(O.U.T).

4 2CD copies