Between:
Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.32875 of 2014 Date:05.11.2014 Amara Venkateswarulu, S/o Brahamaiah And The State of A.P., reptd by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Hyderabad and four others.
.. Petitioner .. Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri I.Koti Reddy Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies (Andhra Pradesh) The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed with the grievance that respondent No.2 is not passing order on the petitioner’s stay application filed along with the appeal against proceedings in Rc.F/5863/2014, dated 21.10.2014, issued by respondent No.3.
I have heard Sri I.Koti Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies (Andhra Pradesh) representing the respondents.
A perusal of the record shows that respondent No.3 has passed an order on the petitioner’s application on 04.10.2014 for supply of certain documents to him by respondent No.4 and the petitioner has made a representation on 07.10.2014 to respondent No.3, to the effect that respondent No.4 has not supplied the documents, by stating that he did not receive any such documents from the office of respondent No.3. Instead of verifying the said fact and rendering a finding thereon, respondent No.3 has termed the petitioner’s conduct as being negligent and suspended his fair price shop authorization.
In my, prima facie, opinion, respondent No.3 has committed a grave impropriety in brushing aside the petitioner’s complaint and suspending his fair price shop authorization without verifying whether the documents directed to be supplied to him were actually supplied or not. Since the appeal is pending before respondent No.2, I do not intend to render conclusive findings on this aspect. However, considering the unreasonableness with which respondent No.3 has acted in suspending the petitioner’s fair price shop authorization, proceedings in Rc.F/5863/2014, dated 21.10.2014, issued by him is suspended, pending the appeal before respondent No.2.
The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.
As a sequel, WPMP.No.41108 of 2014, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.
(C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 05th November 2014 dr