The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.33681 of 2014 Dated 10.11.2014 Between: Nukathoti Nirmala …Petitioner And State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Prl.Secretary, Civil Supplies Dept., Hyderabad and 4 others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.I.Koti Reddy Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies (AP) The Court made the following:
Order:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent No.2 in disposing of the stay application filed by the petitioner in the appeal filed by him against the Order in R.C.F/6231/2014, dated 21-10-2014, passed by respondent No.3, as illegal and arbitrary.
Inasmuch as the appeal filed by the petitioner against Order, dated 21-10-2014, of respondent No.3, is pending before respondent No.2, this Court refrains from expressing a conclusive opinion on its legality or otherwise. However, for the limited purpose of examining whether the said order is liable to be suspended pending appeal, as respondent No.2 has failed to discharge his function as appellate authority by not passing an order on the stay application filed by the petitioner, I have examined the same.
A perusal of Order, dated 21-10-2014, of respondent No.3, shows that the petitioner’s fair price shop authorization was suspended on two grounds viz., that there was excess of 9 liters of kerosene oil and that the petitioner has distributed the essential commodities in the name of 4 card holders despite the fact that they have died.
As regards the first charge, even if the same is taken on its face value, the variation is well within the permissible limits under Clause 24 of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008.
The nature of the second charge requires a detailed enquiry, in which it has to be ascertained whether the allotment of essential commodities was shown in the name of 4 card holders, who allegedly died, and if so, whether the family members of the deceased card holders have received the same. In the latter case, perhaps no action is warranted. Therefore, having regard to the nature of the second charge, I am of the opinion that an ex parte order of suspension is not called for.
For the above-mentioned reasons, the order in R.C.F./6231/2014, dated 21-10-2014, of respondent No.3, is suspended, pending appeal before respondent No.2.
The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed to the extent indicated above.
As a sequel, WPMP.No.42133 of 2014, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.
(C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Dt: 10th November, 2014
LUR