* The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy
+ Writ Petition Nos.36757 to 36761, 36763, 36764, 36773, 36783 to 36789, 36791, 36796, 36801, 36802,
36810 and 36812 of 2014
% Dated 02.12.2014
# Writ Petition No.36757 of 2014 Between: Merugu Mojes …Petitioner and The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Prl.Secretary, Civil Supplies Dept., Hyderabad and 3 others.
…Respondents ! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri T.Niranjan ^ Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies (AP) <Gist:
>Head Note:
? Cases cited: NIL The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy
Writ Petition Nos.36757 to 36761, 36763, 36764, 36773,
36783 to 36789, 36791, 36796, 36801, 36802, 36810
and 36812 of 2014
Dated 02.12.2014 Common Order:
This batch of Writ Petitions arises out of orders of suspension passed by respondent No.3, whereby he has suspended the fair price shop authorizations of the petitioners, pending enquiry.
I have heard Mr.Niranjan Tenepalli, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies (AP) representing the respondents.
A perusal of the records shows that a scam pertaining to creation of bogus ration cards, by linking them with fake EIDs and UIDs, and thereby, drawing excess quota of ration from the Government with a view to make unjust enrichment by the dealers, has been detected. Shockingly, the Deputy Tahsildar viz., David Raju and a Village Revenue Officer viz., Shyam, allegedly, collaborated and conspired with the petitioners by accepting illegal gratification from them. Based on a complaint given by one Kothapalli Ravi Sankar, Tahsildar, Gudivada, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Gudivada, has arrested all the accused including the petitioners and filed a remand report before the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gudivada. It is in this background that the fair price shop authorizations of the petitioners have been suspended by respondent No.3 vide the impugned orders.
With the registration of criminal case and setting the criminal law into motion against the petitioners, the continuance of the petitioners as fair price shop dealers, pending investigation by the Police and disposal of the Criminal Case by the Court, is rendered undesirable as it causes serious prejudice to the public interest. Therefore, respondent No.3 has rightly suspended the petitioners’ authorizations.
The learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that respondent No.3 has not indicated the period, for which the authorizations of the petitioners were suspended, and hence, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. I find no merit in this submission.
Under Clause 5 (5) of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008, the appointing authority is conferred with the power of amending, varying, suspending or cancelling the authorizations of fair price shop dealers. Under the second proviso to the said Clause, the disciplinary authority viz., Assistant Supply Officer/Tahsildar concerned is also conferred with such power. However, in case of the latter exercising such power, the action shall be for a period of 90 days only and if such action is intended to be continued further, it is the appointing authority, which has to pass appropriate order for that purpose. The impugned orders are passed by the appointing authority and not by the disciplinary authority and they were not passed as a measure of substantive penalty, but were intended to be interim in nature, pending further action against the petitioners. In case of exercise of power by the appointing authority, the time limit of 90 days as applicable to the disciplinary authority does not apply. Therefore, on the mere fact that the time limit of 90 days is not indicated, the impugned orders cannot be invalidated. Having regard to the nature of the allegations made against the petitioners, respondent No.3 has to necessarily wait for the verdict of the criminal Court in the pending criminal case as he cannot hold a parallel enquiry into the allegations made against the petitioners. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in not specifying the time limit, for which the petitioner’s authorizations are suspended, in the impugned orders of suspension.
For the above mentioned reasons, while declining to interfere with the impugned orders of suspension, respondent No.3 is directed to ensure that distribution of essential commodities to the card holders of the fair price shops held by the petitioners is undertaken by the nearest dealers in order to avoid inconvenience to the card holders attached to those shops.
With the above direction, this batch of Writ Petitions is dismissed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in these Writ Petitions, stand dismissed.
(C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Dt: 2nd December, 2014
Note:
LR copies B/o
LUR