WP/24261/2004 of K.C.Narasimha Reddy Vs The Joint Collector on 27 December 2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

WRIT PETITION NO : 24261 of 2004

Between:

K.C.Narasimha Reddy S/o.K.C.Narayana ReddyKandurparthy, Chilamathur (M),Anantapur Dist.

AND

..... PETITIONER

1 The Joint Collector Anantapur Dist.

2 The Revenue Divisional Officer Penukonda,Anantapur Dist.

3 The Mandal Revenue Officer Chilamathur Mandal, Anantapur Dist.

.....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 pleasedto issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ ofMandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not passing the orderson appeal filed by the petitioner in appeal in Rc.No.K4/1526/2004, dt 21-12-2004filed against the order of the 2nd respondent in Rc.No.1942/04 E, dt 9-12-2004,as illegal, arbitrary and improper and consequently set-aside the proceedings ofthe 2nd respondent in Rc.No.1942/04 E, dt 9-12-2004, and pass such otherorder or orders.

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.SRINIVAS

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

The Court at the stage of admission made the following ORDER:

Petitioner is a fair price shop dealer. He was issued a show cause notice dated04.11.2004 directing him to explain as to why his authorization shall not becancelled. As many as four charges were framed against him. The petitionersubmitted his explanation on 16.11.2004. Taking the same into account, thesecond respondent passed an order dated 09.12.2004 suspending theauthorization of the petitioner. The petitioner claims to have preferred an appealagainst the order of suspension, together with an application for grant of stay,before the first respondent. His grievance is that the first respondent has notpassed any order so far either in the appeal or in the stay petition and seeksappropriate directions in this regard.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader forCivil Supplies.

The second respondent appears to be in a state of confusion, in the process oftaking various steps against the petitioner. He has issued a show cause noticedated 04.11.2004 directing the petitioner to explain as to why his authorizationshall not be cancelled. The petitioner responded to the same. However, afterconsidering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the second respondenthas chosen to issue a suspension order-cum-show cause notice on09.12.2004. Having suspended the authorization, he directed the petitioner toexplain as to why his dealership shall not be cancelled. When the show causenotice dated 04.11.2004 itself was for cancellation, it is ununderstandable, as to the necessity of issuing a further show cause notice. The impugned order waspassed after considering the explanation offered by the petitioner. Still it wastermed as suspension order-cum-show cause notice.

These, however, are the matters, which need to be taken in to account by theappellate authority. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the same, at thisstage.

Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to passappropriate orders in the appeal or the stay petition, as the case may be, filedby the petitioner. No order as to costs.

----------------------

27.12.2004

ksld

To

1 The Joint Collector Anantapur Dist.

2 The Revenue Divisional Officer Penukonda,Anantapur Dist.

3 The Mandal Revenue Officer Chilamathur Mandal, Anantapur Dist.

4 Two CCs. to the G.P. for Civil Supplies, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad (OUT)

5 Two CD copies.