WP/24305/2004 of R.Chowkla Naik, Vs The Joint Collector, Anantapur on 29 December 2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

WRIT PETITION NO : 24305 of 2004

Between:

R.Chowkla Naik, S/o.Lakshma Naik, Fair Price Shop DealerBasinepalli Thanda (V) Gooty(M) Anantapur District.

AND

..... PETITIONER

1 The Joint Collector, Anantapur, Anantapur District.

2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur, Anantapur District.

3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Gooty, Anantapur District.

.....RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased toissue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamusdeclaring the action of 1st respondent in not disposing of the appeal which is filed bybefore him against the orders of the 2nd respondent passed inRc.No.D1/CS/1294/2004 Dt.16.9.2004 and the action of the 2nd respondent in notcompleting the enquiry initiated by him as illegal, arbitrary and consequently directthe 2nd respondent to complete the enquiry as expeditiously as possible and furtherdirect the respondents to continue the petitioner as FP Shop dealer of Basinepallithanda village, Gooty (M) at Anantapur District pending disposal of enquiry beforethe 2nd respondent.

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.N.CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

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

The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer. He was selected under the categoryreserved in favour of schedule tribes. His authorisation was suspended through ashow cause notice-cum-suspension order dated 16-09-2004, on the allegation thathe has been collecting Rs.0.25 ps. per kg. of rice and Rs.0.50 ps. per liter ofkerosene, over and above the stipulated price, he was supplying kerosene one literless than the entitlement, and the rice under A.A.Y. scheme was also supplied inlesser quantities to the card holders.

The petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent, together withan application for stay. His grievance is that the first respondent has not passed anyorder either in the appeal or in the stay petition so far and seeks appropriatedirections from this Court.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader forCivil Supplies and Sri K.Srinivas, counsel, representing certain card holders, whosought to get themselves impleaded.

The authorisation of the petitioner was suspended through the impugned order, onthree allegations. The petitioner had submitted his explanation immediately andthereafter preferred an appeal before the first respondent, together with anapplication for stay. It is represented that the first respondent has not passed anyorder in the stay petition so far. More than three months have elapsed. Virtually, thevery purpose of filing an application for stay is defeated. Within this time, either thesecond respondent could have disposed of the proceedings against the petitioner orthe first respondent could have disposed of the appeal. It was in this context that aDivision Bench of this Court in JOINT COLLECTOR, KUNOOL v A.NEELIMA held that except where extraordinary circumstances exist, the suspension of authorisationof a fair price shop dealer cannot be continued beyond 90 days.

Further, the suspension of authorisation of the petitioner is not ordered as ameasure pending enquiry. The impugned order states that it is suspended andthereby it has to be inferred as a measure of penalty. Such an order can be passedonly after following the procedure prescribed under Clause 5(4) of the AndhraPradesh Public Distribution System Control Order 2001.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the order ofsuspension passed against the petitioner is set aside. The second respondent isdirected to conclude the proceedings initiated against the petitioner without anyfurther loss of time. Since the order of suspension is set aside, the appeal pendingbefore the first respondent has become infructuous and he does not have to passany orders. No order as to costs.

________________

29-12-2004

kdl

To

1 The Joint Collector, Anantapur, Anantapur District.

2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur, Anantapur District.

3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Gooty, Anantapur District.

4 Two CCs to the Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, A.P.High Court Buildings,Hyderabad (OUT).Hyderabad (OUT).

5 Two CD copies.