WP/27648/2005 of Smt. P.Chandrakala, Vs The Joint Collector, on 27 December 2005

ORDER:

Petitioner questions the order of the 2[nd] respondent vide hisproceeding in Roc.C.3581/05 dated 9.12.2005 placing theauthorization of the petitioner in respect of Kuntipudi Village,Srikalahasti Mandal, Chittoor District, under suspension as illegal andarbitrary.

It is stated that the petitioner was appointed as fair price shop dealerof Kuntipudi village, Srikalahasti Mandal, Krishna District in the year1988 by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati and from the date ofappointment she has been distributing essential commodities as perthe authorization, which is valid up to 31.3.2006. It is further statedthat the petitioner is also permitted to supply kerosene and rice to thecardholders under Food Assurance Scheme to the Cyclone affected persons in the month of December, 2005. It is further stated thatwhen the respondents refused to supply essential commoditieswithout assigning any reasons, she filed W.P.No.26092 of 2005 andthe same was disposed of by this Court on 7.12.2005 directing therespondents to supply essential commodities as long as theauthorization of the petitioner is subsisting. Thereafter, the 2[nd]respondent vide order dated 9.12.2005 suspended the authorizationof the petitioner under Clause 5(4) of the A.P.State Public DistributionSystem Control Order, 2001 on the ground that the petitioner is notresiding in the village and one R.Venkataswamy Naidu is running thesaid fair price shop as benami and he is not distributing the stocksproperly and selling the essential commodities on high rates.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learnedGovernment Pleader for Civil Supplies on behalf of the respondents.

It is the case of the petitioner that in fact R.Venkataswamy Naidu isnot at all running the shop and the family of the petitioner consists offather-in-law, Venkatasubba Naidu, mother-in-law, Ranamma, herhusband, Sudhakara Naidu and sister-in-law Prabhavati. It is thecase of the petitioner that she never permitted to run the shopthrough benami and she never sold the essential commodities athigher price and she never violated any of the conditions.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of theopinion that suspension pending enquiry may not be made in aroutine manner unless there are grave and serious chargespreventing the dealer for further misuse of the essential commodities.The authorization of the petitioner has been suspended pendingenquiry under clause 5(4) of the said Control Order. Suspensionpending enquiry is not specifically provided for. However, it can betaken as an implied or ancillary power vested in the authorityempowered to exercise the power of cancellation or suspension asenvisaged by sub-clause (4) of Clause 5. I am of the opinion thatsuch power cannot be invoked unless there are serious and gravecharges. In the instant case, no specific allegations have been made without making any allegations.

For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order of suspensionpending enquiry passed by the 2[nd] respondent dated 9.12.2005 isset aside and the 2[nd] respondent is directed to frame charges byissuing a show cause notice and pass appropriate orders inaccordance with law. Till then, the petitioner shall be permitted todistribute essential commodities to the cardholders.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

_________________

(V.ESWARAIAH, J.)

27.12.2005

Note: Issue copy within three days

B.O.

kpr