Telangana High Court
WP/24421/2004 of Bhogi Kannayya Raju, Vs The Joint Collector, on 28 December 2004
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 24421 of 2004 Between: Bhogi Kannayya Raju, S/o.Bhogi Appa Rao, R/o.Burja Village
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO : 24421 of 2004
Between:
Bhogi Kannayya Raju, S/o.Bhogi Appa Rao, R/o.Burja Village & Mandal, Srikakulam Dist.
AND
..... PETITIONER
1 The Joint Collector, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District.
2 The Revenue Divisional officer, Srikakulam, Srikakulam 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 pleased toissue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly a writ in the nature ofwrit of Mandamus declaring the proceedings Rc.No.2443/2003-H dated 5-1-2004 ofthe Revenue Divisional officer Srikakulam as illegal and arbitrary and consequentlyset aside the same.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.RAVI SHANKAR
Counsel for the Respondents.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES
The Court 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.
ORAL ORDER:
The authorization of the petitioner was suspended by the second respondentthrough order dated 5-1-2004 on the allegation that the petitioner misutilised the ricemeant for food for work and that he was not available in the village at the time ofinspection. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner preferred an appeal before the firstrespondent. The appeal was disposed of on 17-2-2004 directing the secondrespondent to pass orders in the main proceedings within 30 days. The petitionercontends that no orders have been passed so far. Hence, he challenges the orderpassed by the second respondent.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for CivilSupplies.
The petitioner availed the statutory remedy of appeal under Clause 20 of the A.P.State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001, aggrieved by the order ofsuspension. After referring to the factum of filing of the appeal, the first respondentpassed orders on 17-2-2004 with the following observations.
“The matter has been examined, the Appealpetition is taken on file and the staypetition is rejected.
Remanded the case to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam with a directionto dispose of the case as per law within 30 days.”
To say the least, the first respondent did not follow the basic principles of hearing fordisposal of the appeals. On the one hand the order reads that the appeal is taken onfile and on the other hand, it indicates that the case is remanded to the secondrespondent with a direction to dispose of the case within 30 days. Further thequestion of remanding a matter by an appellate authority would arise, if only theorder under appeal is set aside. It is a case either of lack of experience on the part ofthe officer, who passed the order, or exhibition of indifference while exercising theappellate powers.
Coming to the order passed by the second respondent on 5.1.2004, it is evident thathe issued a show cause notice to the petitioner directing him to explain as to whyaction shall not be taken. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 21-10-2003.After referring to the charges, show cause notice and the explanation the firstrespondent passed orders with the following observations.
“In this connection remarks of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Burja has called for onthe statement of Sri B. Kannayyaraju, F.P. Shop Dealer, Burja.III. The Mandal Revenue OFficer, Burja has submitted his remarks that the dealer is misutilised thefood for work and ISLs Rice.
In the above circumstance reported by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Burja, since 4months the F.P. Shop dealer has not turned up, committed irregularities and violatedthe APSC (RDCS) 2001 Authorisation conditions, pending enquiry the authorizationof Sri B.Kannayyaraju, F.P. Shop Dealer, Burja.III of Burja Mandal is herebysuspended.”
Conclusion
It discloses that except relying upon the remarks offered by the Mandal RevenueOfficer the second respondent did not apply his mind to the facts of the case. Theobservations made in one paragraph do not correlate with the other. Sentences aregrammatically unsound. Once the order of suspension was preceded by a showcause notice, the question of suspending the authorization pending enquiry does notarise. The whole episode discloses that the order passed by the respondents do notconform to the relevant provisions or the settled procedure.
In JOINT COLLECTOR, KURNOOL V. NEELIMA the Division Bench of this courtheld that the suspension of authorization of the fair price shop dealer cannot becontinued beyond 90 days except where extraordinary circumstances exist.
For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed and the order dated 5-11-2004 passed by the first respondent is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.
28[th] December, 2004
js.
____________________
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
To
1 The Joint Collector, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District.
2 The Revenue Divisional officer, Srikakulam, Srikakulam Dist.
3 Two CCs to G.P for Civil Supplies, High Court of A.P. Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT)
4 Two CD Copies.