The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.30319 of 2014
Dated 10.10.2014
Between:
Goli Pitchaiah 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 setting aside two separate proceedings in Rc.Nos.4207/14-G and 4207/2014/G bearing the same date i.e., 20-09- 2014 issued by respondent No.2. While, by the first proceeding, respondent No.2 has placed the petitioner’s authorization in respect of fair price shop No.13 of Tadepalli Village and Mandal, Guntur District, under suspension, by the second proceeding, he has issued a show cause notice to the petitioner, purportedly, under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
As regards the first mentioned proceeding under which the petitioner’s authorization was suspended, learned Counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the fact that against the said order, his client has a remedy of appeal under the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008. In view of availability of the alternative remedy of appeal against the impugned order of suspension of the petitioner’s fair price shop authorisation, I am not inclined to examine the correctness or otherwise of the same, on merits, at this stage. Hence, the prayer, as sought for by the petitioner, to the extent of setting aside the first mentioned proceeding of respondent No.2 is rejected.
As regards the second mentioned proceeding, by which, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, it is conceded by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies (AP) that it is only the ‘Collector’, which expression does not include the ‘Revenue Divisional Officer’, that has the jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, issue show cause notice and pass confiscation orders. Therefore, the second mentioned proceeding, vide which show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by respondent No.2, is wholly without jurisdiction and the same is, accordingly, set aside.
The Writ Petition is, accordingly, partly allowed leaving the petitioner free to file an appeal against the impugned order of suspension passed by respondent No.2, if he feels aggrieved thereby.
As a sequel, WPMP.No.37894 of 2014, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.
(C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Dt: 10th October, 2014 LUR