Telangana High Court
WP/24709/2004 of Smt.S.Maremma, Vs The Joint Collector, Kurnool, on 30 December 2004
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 24709 of 2004 Between: Smt.S.Maremma, w/o S.Shadrak, R/o Enugubala (V), Yemmiganur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDYWRIT PETITION NO : 24709 of 2004
Between:
Smt.S.Maremma, w/o S.Shadrak,
R/o Enugubala (V), Yemmiganur Mandal, Kurnool District.
AND
..... PETITIONER
1 The Joint Collector, Kurnool, Kurnool District.
2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoni, Kurnool District.
3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Yemmiganur, Kurnool District.
.....RESPONDENT(S)
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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ ofmandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the proceedings inRc.M.1218 of 2004 dated 17-12-2004 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principlesof natural justice and also against the provisions of Control Order 2001 andconsequently direct the respondents herein to restore the authorisation of thepetitioner by suspending the impugned proceedings pending the Appeal before the1st respondent and pass such other order or orders.
Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.V.RAGHU VEER
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES
The Court, at the stage of admission, 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.
ORDER:
Petitioner is a fair price shop dealer. Her authorization was suspended by the 2[nd]respondent through his order, dated 17.12.2004. Aggrieved thereby, petitionerpreferred an appeal before the 1[st] respondent together with an application for stay.The 1[st] respondent is said to have rejected the application for stay. Petitioner feelsaggrieved by the same.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader forCivil Supplies.
Petitioner was issued a Show-Cause Notice, dated 07.11.2004. It was alleged thatthe petitioner was distributing less quantities of PDS rice and kerosene and that shewas collecting slightly higher prices more than the stipulated one’s. On receipt of thesame, petitioner submitted her explanation on 12.12.2004. On a consideration of thesame, the 2[nd] respondent suspended the authorization of the petitioner. In theappeal preferred by the petitioner, she filed an application for stay, and it wasrejected by the 1[st] respondent.
From a perusal of the order, dated 17.12.2004, passed by the 2[nd] respondent, it isevident that the authorization of the petitioner was suspended after conductingenquiry. Therefore, it has to be treated as a substantive punishment. Suspension, asa punishment, has to be for a specified period. There cannot be any indefinite suspension, as a punishment. Further, the findings recorded by the 2[nd] respondent,prima facie, do not accord with the general principles of evidence. Petitioner flatlydenied the allegations made against her. The 2[nd] respondent took the view thatexcept denying, she did not place any material in support of her contentions. Thequestion of an individual being required to prove a negative fact does not arise. Theallegation against the petitioner could have been sustained only on the basis ofspecific instances.
For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the order of suspensionpassed against the petitioner shall stand stayed, till the disposal of the appeal by the1[st] respondent. There shall be no order as to costs.
______________________
L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J
Dated : 30[th] December, 2004
TS
To
1 The Joint Collector, Kurnool, Kurnool District.
2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoni, Kurnool District.
3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Yemmiganur, Kurnool District.
4 2 CCs to the Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, High Court Buildings,Hyderabad. (OUT)
5 2CD copies.