The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.37343 of 2014 Dated 05.12.2014 Between: G.Sridevi …Petitioner And State of Andhra Pradesh, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, rep. by its Secretary and 3 others. Hyderabad and 3 others.
…Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.A.Jagannadha Rao 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 order passed by respondent No.3 vide RC.No.894/2014/G, dated 04-10-2014, whereby he has suspended the petitioner’s fair price shop authorization mainly on two grounds viz., (1) that since her marriage, the petitioner has not been residing in the village, in which the fair price shop relating to which she holds authorization, is located and the said shop is being run by a benami dealer; and (2) that the petitioner has been selling essential commodities viz., oil, kerosene oil and red dal at higher rates than the prescribed rates by one rupee.
This Court has, time and again, held that the appointing or disciplinary authority shall not resort to suspension of fair price shop authorizations on frivolous grounds (See K.Nirmala v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapur & another[1], Thyrumala Setty Phanindra vs. District Collector (CS), Guntur
[2]
District & others and S.Babjan vs. Govt. of A.P., Prl.Secretary (Civil Supplies Dept.), [3] Hyderabad ).
Neither of the above-mentioned two grounds, based on which the impugned order of suspension has been passed, pertain to misappropriation or improper distribution of essential commodities. The alleged non- residence of the petitioner and her selling some of the essential commodities at higher rates than the prescribed rates, are aspects which need to be adjudicated after a thorough enquiry. Respondent No.3, being the appointing authority, ought not to have been solely guided by the purported report, dated 15-09-2014, of respondent No.4.
Another serious fallacy, from which the impugned order of suspension suffers, is that respondent No.3 has not indicated as to whether the same is passed pending enquiry or as a substantive penalty. In the absence of any indication that the impugned order is suspended pending enquiry, the same shall be understood as having been passed as a substantive penalty. Such a penalty should not have been imposed on the petitioner without holding an enquiry. For the above-mentioned reasons, the impugned order in RC.No.894/2014/G, dated 04-10-2014, passed by respondent No.3, cannot be sustained and the same is, accordingly, set aside.
The Writ Petition is allowed.
As a sequel, WPMP.No.46742 of 2014, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.
(C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Dt: 5th December, 2014 LUR
[1] 2013 (1) ALT 339
[2] 2013 (5) ALT 237
[3] W.P.No.25823 of 2014 & batch, dated 07-10-2014