HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.31463 of 2014 Date:20.10.2014 Between:
B.Punyavathamma, W/o Krishna Reddy . Petitioner And:
The State of A.P., , reptd by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Hyderabad and two others.
. Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri N.Ranga Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies (Andhra Pradesh) The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside proceedings in Reference:B/5227/2014, dated 23.09.2014, of respondent No.2, whereby he has suspended the petitioner’s fair price shop authorisation.
At the hearing, the only submission advanced by Sri N.Ranga Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that respondent No.2 has passed the order of suspension after issuing show cause notice inviting explanation and that while doing so, he has not indicated as to whether the order of suspension is passed pending enquiry or as a substantive penalty. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Boya Chennappa Vs. Revenue Divisional
[1]
Officer, Adoni .
A perusal of the impugned order shows that respondent No.2 has specifically mentioned therein that as per Clause-5(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Public Distribution (Control) Orders, 2008, the petitioner’s fair price shop authorisation is suspended pending enquiry. Therefore, the very premise on which order of respondent No.2 is questioned is wrong. Indeed, respondent No.2, instead of straightaway suspending the petitioner’s fair price shop authorisation, evidently, wanted to satisfy himself that there was prima facie case for suspension of the petitioner’s fair price shop authorisation. He has, accordingly, passed the impugned order of suspension after inviting explanation from the petitioner pending further enquiry.
In this view of the matter, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order of suspension. However, respondent No.2 is directed to complete the enquiry and pass a final order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.39330 of 2014 filed by the petitioner for interim relief stands disposed of as infructuous.
JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA
REDDY
20th October, 2014 DR
[1] 2013 (1) ALT 265