THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.29363 of 2014 Dated: 09.10.2014 Between:
Chirumamilla Buchaiah .. Petitioner and The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and others. .. Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. G.V.S. Mehar Kumar Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies (A.P.) This Court made the following:
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside proceedings in Rc.No.1161/2014/B dated 16.08.2014 of respondent No.3, whereby he has suspended the petitioner’s authorization.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.
Ordinarily, this Court is loath in entertaining the writ petitions filed against the order of suspension of fair price shop authorizations pending enquiry. However, this Court finds the case on hand as an exception to this general practice.
The petitioner’s fair price shop authorization is suspended on the following alleged irregularities:-
“1. Basing on the report of the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar I/C, Gurazala, inspected to Shop No.30, the F.P. Shop dealer is (sic has) not produced of Authorization issued by the competent authority.
2. Stock cum-rates board is not exhibited in the business premises.
3. Electronic weighing machine is not maintained for distribution of E.Cs.
4. Toll free number is not exhibited in front of the F.P. Shop business premises.”
A careful reading of the above reproduced allegations would show that none of them relates to serious irregularities such as non-distribution of essential commodities to the cardholders or diversion of essential commodities into black market or distribution of essential commodities on higher prices or through short-weighing.
[1]
In K. Nirmala v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapur , 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. The case on hand is a perfect illustration of how respondent No.2 has failed to make a rational approach by suspending the petitioner’s authorization on the ground of small variations. Respondent No.1 has also completely failed to consider this aspect and rejected the petitioner’s application for stay without even assigning any reasons therefor.”
The present case falls within the parameters of the above- mentioned judgment, as all the allegations made against the petitioner are too trivial warranting suspension of his authorization.
For the above-mentioned reasons, the impugned order of suspension is set aside. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.
As a sequel to the allowing of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.36715 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 9th October, 2014 IBL
[1] 2013 (1) ALT 339