THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.36505 of 2014 Dated: 28.11.2014 Between:
Nakkala Devendra .. Petitioner and The State of Andhra Pradesh, Civil Supplies Department, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and others.
.. Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. Kothapalli Ram Mohan Chowedary Counsel for the respondents: A.G.P. for Civil Supplies (A.P.) The court made the following:
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief: “…issue any appropriate writ more particularly issue one writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not passing orders against the petitioner appeal petition or on the stay petition filed on 14.11.2014, against the order of the 3rd respondent passed in D.DIS.D1CS/3880/2014 dated 22.10.2014, as illegal, unjust and set aside the order of the 3rd respondent passed in D.DIS.D1CS/3880/2014 dated 22.10.2014, consequently direct the respondents 3 and 4 to continue the petitioner as the F.P. shop dealer.”
At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies (A.P.), on instructions, submitted that upon realizing that the impugned order is not sustainable in law, respondent No.3 has issued proceedings in Rc.No.D1CS/9402/2014 dated 27.11.2014, whereby he has set aside the impugned order and restored the petitioner’s fair price shop authorization.
A perusal of the above-mentioned proceedings shows that respondent No.3 has contemplated further enquiry. On the perusal of the record, it is evident that the variations alleged in the impugned order are well within the permissible limits of variations as envisaged under Clause 24 of the A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008, and that charges 2 to 4 are too trivial to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner. Therefore, I do not find any justification for respondent No.3 to continue the enquiry on the charges framed against the petitioner. Hence, respondent No.3 is prohibited from proceeding with further enquiry on the charges on which he has suspended the petitioner’s fair price shop authorization.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed.
As a sequel to the allowing of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.45694 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 28th November, 2014 IBL