The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.30329 of 2010
Dated 10.10.2014
Between:
Ch.Vijaya Kumari And …Petitioner The State of A.P., Rep. by its Secretary, Consumer Affairs, Food & Civil Supplies (CS.I)Dept., Hyderabad and 2 others.
…Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.K.Srinivas Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies (AP) The Court made the following:
Order:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside the proceeding in Rc.No.1535/2014-A, dated 24-09-2014, whereby respondent No.2 has placed the petitioner’s authorization under suspension, pending enquiry. Ordinarily, this Court does not entertain the Writ Petitions filed questioning the orders of suspension of fair price shop authorizations pending enquiry, more so, if the alternative remedies of appeal and revision are available. However, this case is an out of the ordinary case warranting departure from the usual practice being followed by this Court.
I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies representing the respondents.
A perusal of the impugned order shows that respondent No.2 resorted to the action of suspension of the petitioner’s authorization in respect of fair price shop No.13 of Terala Village, Durgi Mandal, Guntur District, on the following allegations:
“1.The F.P.Shop Dealer residing at Macherla Town instead of Terala Village
2. The F.P. shop dealer used to come to FP shop by morning and goes back to Macherla by evening now and then only.
3. The F.P.Shop is being run by Sri Ch.Mastanaiah (Benami) and he is a criminal in Murder case.”
In K.Nirmala v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapur & another[1], this Court held as under:
“This Court has time and again held that an order of suspension of fair price shop authorization being punitive in nature cannot be resorted to on trivial and flimsy grounds and that unless the appointing authority or the disciplinary authority has the reason to believe that the fair price shop dealer has been indulging in serious irregularities and that his further continuance pending enquiry as a dealer will cause serious prejudice to the public interest, suspension cannot be resorted to. It is regrettable that this principle is being ignored by the competent authorities in many a case.”
I n Thyrumala Setty Phanindra vs. District Collector (CS), Guntur District & others[2], this Court reiterated the said dicta as under:
“Any order of suspension, even if the same is passed pending enquiry, results in serious adverse consequences to the fair price shop dealer. While exercising this power, the appointing authority needs to use a proper sense of proportion. The power of suspension cannot be exercised as a matter of course. The main purpose of keeping dealership under suspension pending enquiry is to prevent the dealer from tampering of the record. Therefore, only when serious allegations of commissions and omissions in distribution of the essential commodities in the fair price shop are made and a prima facie case is established against the dealer, the power of suspension of authorisation has to be exercised. There may be certain allegations which may not warrant immediate suspension. The case on hand falls in this category where, no suspension is warranted as, it is a matter of verification with reference to evidence whether the petitioner has permitted a benami to run the fair price shop or not. Considering the fact that the petitioner’s fair price shop is run without any variations between the stock register and the ground stock and without there being any complaints from any card holders, of improper distribution of commodities and in the absence of any allegation that the petitioner or the person who is allegedly running the fair price shop is indulging in acts, such as diversion of the essential commodities into black market, the hasty action of respondent No.2 in suspending the petitioner’s authorization cannot be sustained.”
In the light of the ratio laid down in the above judgments and on examination of the reasons mentioned in the impugned order, this Court is of the opinion that none of the reasons, on the basis of which suspension of the petitioner’s authorization has been made, warrant such action. Whether the first two allegations viz., the petitioner is not residing at the place where the fair price shop is situated and the fair price shop is permitted to be run by a Benami are the aspects which need to be decided after the enquiry. There is no whisper in the impugned order that the petitioner is involved in clandestine business or committed any other acts of misfeasance or malfeasence and thereby, his continuance as the authorized dealer of the fair price shop in question would cause prejudice to the interests of the card holders.
For the above-mentioned reasons, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is, accordingly, set aside.
The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed.
As a sequel, WPMP.No.37910 of 2914, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.
(C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Dt: 10th October, 2014
LUR
[1] 2013 (1) ALT 339
[2] 2013 (5) ALT 237