HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.31435 of 2014 Date:20.10.2014 Between:
M.Siddeswara Prasad, S/o Peddaiah And:
The State of A.P., reptd by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Hyderabad and three others.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri G.Tuhin Kumar . Petitioner . Respondents Counsel for the Respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies (Andhra Pradesh) The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside order in L.Dis.No.1(3)/2057/2014, dated 24.09.2014, of respondent No.2, whereby he has dismissed the petitioner's appeal filed against the order of respondent No.3 suspending the petitioner's fair price shop authorization pending enquiry into the allegations.
At the hearing, Sri G.Tuhin Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that respondent No.2 has not assigned any reasons whatsoever for dismissing the appeal. He has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank Vs. Jagadish Sharan Varshney, in support of his submission that even while confirming the order of the lower authority, the appellate authority is bound to give reasons.
The order assailed by the petitioner in the appeal was an order of suspension of authorization pending enquiry. Respondent No.2 has mentioned in the impugned order that he is not inclined to interfere with the order assailed in the appeal for the reason that the order of suspension was only interim in nature and not a final order.
While it is true that the appellate authority also ought to have referred to the nature of the allegations in his order, to satisfy myself, I have gone through the allegations on which respondent No.3 has suspended the petitioner's fair price shop authorization. It is alleged in the said order that during inspection, the petitioner was not available; that one of his family members has produced the record, with reference to which, verification of ground stock was made; and that such verification revealed that there was deficit of 3.76 quintals of rice, 88 packets out of 450 packets of sugar, 53 packets out of 450 packets of atta and an excess of 53 liters out of 772 liters of kerosene oil. No doubt, the petitioner has come out with an explanation in the appeal as well as in the affidavit, filed in support of the Writ Petition, for the alleged variations.
In my opinion, as the order of suspension was passed pending enquiry, all that the appellate authority or this Court would need to look at this stage is whether the allegations, on which the authorization is suspended taken on their face value are serious enough to warrant such suspension. Neither the appellate authority nor this Court will substitute its opinion based on the explanation of the dealer when the enquiry into the serious allegations is pending. This is, obviously, what respondent No.2 has meant in stating that since the order of suspension was only interim in nature, he was not inclined to interfere with such an order in the appeal at that stage. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Rani Lakshmi Bi Kshetriya Gramin Bank has no application to the facts of the present case.
For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the Writ Petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.39297 of 2014 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous.
JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
20th October, 2014 DR