THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.30428 of 2014 Dated: 13.10.2014 Between:
Smt. D. Sreevani .. Petitioner and The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Civil Supplies Department, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and others.
.. Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Kothapalli Ram Mohan Chowdary Counsel for the Respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies (A.P.) The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside proceedings in Rc.DICS/6814/2014 dated 25.09.2014 of respondent No.2, whereby he has suspended the petitioner’s fair price shop authorization.
Ordinarily, this Court is loath in entertaining the writ petitions filed questioning the orders of suspension passed pending enquiry. However, the facts of this case convinced me to entertain this writ petition by treating the same as an exception to the above principle, because a perusal of the impugned order shows that the variations are too minor and the imputations are too trivial to warrant suspension of fair price shop authorization.
As regards the variations in stocks, as against 79.99 quintals of rice, the variation is 0-99 kgs., out of 2.50 quintals of sugar, the variation is 0-01½ kgs and out of 400 kgs. of atta, the variation is –2 kgs. It is quite evident from the above figures that the variation is within the permissible limit of 1.5%. Respondent No.2 appeared to have completely lost sight of this fact.
With regard to the imputations against the petitioner, enumerated at Sl.Nos.1 to 5 of the impugned order, none of them warrant extreme action of suspension pending enquiry.
This Court, in K. Nirmala v. Revenue Divisional Officer,
[1]
Ananthapur , held that the licensing authority shall not resort to the serious action of suspension of fair price shop authorization pending enquiry on flimsy and trivial allegations. This principle was reiterated i n Thyrumala Setty Phanindra v. District Collector (CS), Guntur
[2]
District .
The case on hand falls within the legal parameters laid down in the above-mentioned judgments. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed.
As a sequel to the allowing of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.38033 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 13th October, 2014 IBL
[1] 2013 (1) ALT 339
[2] 2013 (5) ALT 237