HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 1387 OF 2014 DATE: 12.11.2014 Between:
Bhumireddy Pratap Reddy … Appellant And K. Nageswar Reddy & others.
… Respondents This Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 1387 of 2014 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is sought to be preferred against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 19.09.2014 by which the prayer of the writ petition was allowed.
The writ petitioner approached the learned Single Judge with a complaint that without issuing any notice and without giving an opportunity of hearing his fair price shop dealership on temporary basis has been taken away. The learned Single Judge having found that no notice was given to the writ petitioner thought it fit to set aside the impugned order. But, the problem has arisen because of fresh temporary appointment in favour of the appellant, which was also cancelled by his Lordship.
We have heard the parties appeared before us and we think that the appeal can be disposed of without going by any procedural formalities by the following order.
Admittedly, the writ petitioner was a temporary dealer. Although under law there is no provision for temporary appointment, however, ad hoc measure has been taken for administrative exigencies till the regular appointment is made. Therefore, we think that neither of the parties has got any vested right to remain as a dealer. The fact remains that the learned Single Judge has given a direction to the officials concerned for taking measures for appointment of permanent dealer. On this portion of the order we are of the view that the order of cancellation of temporary dealership was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, we direct the respondent officials to appoint permanent dealer.
Let the writ petitioner along with the appellant be heard to find whether the order of cancellation of temporary dealership of the writ petitioner was justified in the context of the complaint said to have been made. Therefore, the respondent officials shall supply a copy of the said complaint to the writ petitioner, and after hearing, if the officer concerned finds that the complaint is justified and correct then the order of cancellation of temporary dealership of the writ petitioner shall stand and the appellant’s temporary dealership shall be restored. In the event, the complaint is found to be incorrect then the temporary dealership of the writ petitioner has to be restored. In either of the cases this temporary arrangement should continue till permanent dealer is appointed. Hearing must be completed within a period of fortnight from the date of communication of this order. Till such hearing takes place, the writ petitioner shall function as temporary dealer of the fair price shop in question. We direct the Government to appoint permanent dealer within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. We make it clear that this order has been passed not intending to validate or regularize the temporary arrangement but keeping in view the public inconvenience this measure has been taken.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J
Date: 12.11.2014 ES