Telangana High Court
WP/25115/2004 of B. Jaya Rao, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer, 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 : 25115 of 2004 Between: B. Jaya Rao, S/o. Veeraiah, R/o. Christainpalem,
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 REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO : 25115 of 2004
Between:
B. Jaya Rao, S/o. Veeraiah, R/o. Christainpalem, Narsaraopet, Guntur District.
AND
..... PETITIONER
1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsaraopet, Guntur District.
2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Narsaraopet, 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 an appropriate order writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writof mandamus, declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not passing any orders inthe appeal filed by the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary unjust and consequently setaside the order dt. 2.9.2004 vice R.C. No. 513/2004 -C passed by the 2ndrespondent and to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fitand proper in the circumstances.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MRK.JOSEPH
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 was granted a Kerosene Hawkers Licence in the year 1982 for wardNo.12 of Narasaraopet Village. The 2[nd] respondent suspended the licence throughhis proceedings, dated 02.09.2004 on the allegation that the petitioner is sellingkerosene oil at a higher rate and that he is distributing kerosene twice in a monthand that the measurement is not proper. He preferred an appeal before the 1[st]respondent. He also prayed for interim orders with a view to enable him to functionas Hawker. No orders are said to have been passed so far.
The petitioner contends that the order of suspension was passed against himon account of political pressure exerted by certain interested persons. He also filedthe copy of a representation, said to have been signed by 133 card-holders of theward, stating that they have been receiving kerosene from the petitioner properlyand the proceedings against him were politically motivated.
Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader forCivil Supplies.
A perusal of the order of suspension discloses that the basis for the same is acomplaint, dated 03.08.2004, submitted by Smt S.K.Khaseembee and 24 othersagainst the petitioner. The Mandal Revenue Inspector was deputed to conductenquiry within two days and on 05.08.2004 he is said to have submitted a report.The 2[nd] respondent took the same into account and passed the impugned orderalmost one month thereafter. It is more than three months that the petitioner filed the appeal before the 3[rd] respondent and no interim or final orders have been passed asyet.
The 2[nd] respondent has chosen to while away almost a month, after receivingthe report from the Mandal Revenue Inspector, to pass order of suspension againstthe petitioner. Within this time, he could have ascertained the version of thepetitioner on the allegations made in the complaint, dated 03.08.2004. Takingunilateral action on the strength of a complaint can never be said to be the properexercise of administrative power. It may result in several perilous situations.Howsoever grave an allegation against a person may be, before it is acted upon, theversion of the person against whom the allegation is made, needs to be ascertained.Even where an action is resorted to as a measure pending enquiry, certain basicverification from the affected person is necessary. No such exercise was undertakenin this case.
Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that the order of suspensionpassed against the petitioner shall remain stayed, till the 1[st] respondent disposes ofthe appeal and the petitioner shall be entitled to function as kerosene hawker. Thereshall be no order as to costs.
31.12.2004
JsuTo
1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsaraopet, Guntur District.
2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Narsaraopet, Guntur District.
3 2CCs to the G.P for Civil Supplies, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad(O.U.T).
4 2CD copies
____________