THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.32191 of 2014 Between: K.Ramachandrudu And Dated 30th October, 2014 …Petitioner The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department, Hyderabad and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri G.Venkat Reddy Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies (AP) The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed feeling aggrieved by non-disposal of the stay application filed by the petitioner in appeal, by respondent No.2.
I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. The petitioner is the fair price shop dealer of shop No.116 of Sangala Village, Krishnagiri Mandal, Kurnool District. Based on the purported inspection of the petitioner’s shop, respondent No.3 has suspended the petitioner’s authorisation by order, dated 08.09.2014. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No.2 on 08.10.2014. The petitioner filed this writ petition with the grievance that respondent No.2 has not disposed of the stay application filed in the appeal.
In my opinion, respondent No.2 ought to have passed appropriate orders on the stay application. As he has not done so, I have chosen to examine the order passed by respondent No.3 suspending the petitioner’s authorisation. A perusal of the said order would show that while respondent No.3 has found no variations at all in distribution of essential commodities, he has however pointed out that there is deviation in dynamic Acquittance register as signatures of 10 cardholders are not taken.
In my prima facie opinion, the order of respondent No.3 suffers from serious contradiction because the essential commodities are not distributed to 10 cardholders, the quantities shown against those cards should not have been included under the column ‘stock sold’. Since no variations were found, it is presumable that these quantities were included in the category of stock sold. Therefore, if at all the lapse pointed out against the petitioner is purely technical in nature which does not warrant suspension of his authorisation. Therefore, the order, dated 08.09.2014, of respondent No.3, is suspended pending disposal of appeal by respondent No.2.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above.
As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.40247 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 30th October, 2014
VGB