WP/41116/2014 of Boddu Mallaiah Vs The State of Telangana, on 31 December 2014

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDYWRIT PETITION No.41116 of 2014Date:31.12.2014

Between:Boddu Mallaiah,S/o Kistaiah

..... Petitioner

And:

The State of Telangana., reptd by its PrincipalSecretary, Civil Supplies Department,Hyderabad and three others.

.....Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri P.Lakshma Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: GP for Civil Supplies (TS)

The Court made the following:ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to setaside proceedings in Proc.No.C/821/2014, dated03.12.2014, of respondent No.3, whereby he hassuspended the petitioner’s fair price shop authorization.

A perusal of impugned proceeding shows that thesole reason for which the petitioner’s fair price shopauthorization has been suspended is initiation of theproceedings under Section 6-A of the EssentialCommodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) against him. In my opinion, the scope of the proceedings underSection 6-A of the Act and the jurisdiction of respondentNo.3 as appointing-cum-disciplinary authority are distinctand different from each other. As a disciplinary authority, itis incumbent upon respondent No.3 to consider whetherthe allegations on which the proceedings under Section 6- A of the Act have been initiated are serious enough towarrant suspension of the petitioner’s fair price shopauthorization, pending enquiry.

Indeed, this Court has held that the action ofsuspension being extreme in nature, the appointingauthority shall not resort to such action, unless he issatisfied that the nature of the allegations is so seriousthat it is not desirable to continue the fair price shop dealerin public interest, pending enquiry. (See K.Nirmala V.

Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur[[1]],ThyrumalaSetty Phanindra V. District Collector (CS), Guntur District and others[[2]]and in Writ Petition No.25823 of 2014 andbatch, dated 07.10.2014). Unless his satisfaction isrecorded by respondent No.3 with reference to theallegations against the petitioner, the latter’s fair priceshop authorization shall not be suspended. As respondentNo.3 has failed to apply his mind to the nature of theallegations and record his satisfaction that it is notdesirable to continue the petitioner as the fair price shopdealer in public interest, the impugned order is set aside.The petitioner shall be continued as the fair price shopdealer. This order, however, will not preclude respondentNo.3 from passing a fresh order in the light of theobservations made hereinbefore.

Subject to the above direction and observation, theWrit Petition is allowed.

As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition,W.P.M.P.No.51492 of 2014 filed by the petitioner forinterim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

___________________________

JUSTICEC.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

31[st] December 2014DR

[1]2013(1) ALT 339[2]2013(5) ALT 237