THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.34948 of 2014
Dated:25.11.2014
Between:
Daram Ramanjaneya Reddy, S/o Nagi Reddy ….Petitioner And:
The State of A.P., reptd by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Hyderabad and four others.
… Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri I.Gopala Reddy 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 proceedings, vide Rc.F/4099/2014, dated 03.09.2014, of respondent No.4, as confirmed by respondent No.3, vide his proceedings in Rc/CS2/310/2014, dated 03.11.2014.
A perusal of the record shows that against the orders impugned in this Writ Petition, a Revision Petition is filed and the same is pending before respondent No.2. Therefore, this Court refrains from adjudicating on the legality or otherwise of the orders of respondent Nos.3 and 4. However, it will suffice to note that respondent No.4 has cancelled the petitioner’s fair price shop authorization only on the ground that one Daram Satyanarayana Reddy has been running the petitioner’s fair price shop benami. The only basis for arriving at this conclusion is the purported statement signed by the said Daram Satyanarayana Reddy who described himself as the cousin of the petitioner. The record produced by learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies (Andhra Pradesh) shows that this statement was prepared by some one else and the same was signed by the said Daram Satyanarayana Reddy. The order, dated 03.09.2014, passed by respondent No.4 shows that he has not held any enquiry whatsoever as to whether the allegation made against the petitioner, namely, that he has allowed a benami to run the fair price shop, is proved with reference to acceptable evidence. This Court prima facie feels that respondent No.4 has failed to hold proper enquiry and got himself swayed by the inspection report, dated 11.08.2014, of the Food Inspector, Podili.
In these facts of the case, the impugned orders of respondent Nos.3 and 4 shall remain suspended till the disposal of the Revision Petition by respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 is directed to consider the grounds raised by the petitioner in the Revision Petition in an objective manner and pass a speaking order after giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard in the Revision Petition. Till the disposal of the Revision Petition, the petitioner shall be continued as fair price shop dealer.
Subject to the above observations and directions, the Writ Petition is allowed.
As a sequel, WPMP.No.43719 of 2014 is disposed of as infructuous.
JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY 25th November, 2014 DR