THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.37099 of 2014 Dated: 03.12.2014 Between:
K. Jyothi .. Petitioner and The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and others.
.. Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. K. Narsi Reddy Counsel for the respondents: A.G.P. for Civil Supplies (AP) The court made the following:
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside proceedings in Rc.No.1377/2014E dated 07.10.2014 of respondent No.4, whereby he has cancelled the petitioner’s fair price shop authorization.
A perusal of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition shows that against the impugned order, the petitioner has filed an appeal before respondent No.3 and that the same is pending. As the petitioner has already availed the appellate remedy, it is not appropriate for this Court to adjudicate on the legality or otherwise of the impugned order. However, at the hearing, it has come to light that the identical orders passed by the incumbent of respondent No.4, cancelling several fair price shop authorizations in his division, were set aside by this Court in several writ petitions. I have also perused the impugned order passed by respondent No.4, which ex facie reveals that except heavily relying upon the report of the Tahsildar, Gummagatta, and the statements of the cardholders and purported respectable persons of the village recorded by the Mandal Revenue Inspector-I, Gummagatta, respondent No.4 has not held any independent enquiry. Furthermore, respondent No.4 has displayed a complete non-application of mind by relying upon the explanation offered by another dealer instead of the explanation offered by the petitioner. However, as the appeal is pending before respondent No.3, I do not propose to record conclusive opinion on the legality or otherwise of the impugned order.
As no interim order on the stay application filed by the petitioner is stated to have been passed by respondent No.3 and since this Court i s prima facie satisfied that the impugned order is not sustainable either in law or on facts, the same is suspended pending disposal of the appeal by respondent No.3. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 are directed to allow the petitioner to function as fair price shop dealer till disposal of the appeal. Respondent No.3 is directed to objectively consider the appeal filed by the petitioner with reference to the orders passed by this Court in the writ petitions filed questioning the similar orders passed by respondent No.4.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above.
As a sequel to the allowing of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.46425 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 3rd December, 2014 IBL