THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.38528 of 2014 Dated: 16.12.2014 Between:
P. Simhadri Rao .. Petitioner and The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Principal Secretary, Department of Civil Supplies, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and others.
.. Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. Uma Sankar Lokanadham Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies (A.P.) The court made the following:
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside proceedings in Rc.No.2499/2013/CS dated 25.09.2014 of respondent No.3, whereby he has suspended the petitioner’s fair price shop authorization.
As the petitioner claimed to have filed an appeal before respondent No.2 and the same is stated to have been received by the office of the latter on 20.10.2014, the relief claimed in this writ petition cannot be granted. However, for the purpose of considering making interim arrangement pending appeal, this Court has perused the impugned order passed by respondent No.3. The record reveals that respondent No.3 has issued show-cause notice dated 08.08.2014 to the petitioner to which he has submitted his explanation on 22.08.2014, wherein he has denied the allegations. However, respondent No.3 has passed the impugned order without even reference to the contents of the said explanation. The two allegations on which the petitioner’s authorization has been suspended are that he has failed to show the closing balance of 63 kgs. of rice and that he has been selling the essential commodities at higher rates.
This Court in K. Nirmala v. Revenue Divisional Officer,
[1]
Ananthapur , Thyrumala Setty Phanindra v. District Collector
[2]
(CS), Guntur District and S. Babjan v. The Government of A.P.
rep. by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department and others[3] has held that the appointing authorities cannot exercise the power of suspension of authorizations of fair price shop dealers unless the gravity of charges leveled against them is such that it is not desirable in public interest to continue them as fair price shop dealers till completion of enquiry and passing of final order. By no means, the charges on which the petitioner’s authorization has been suspended are grave enough warranting such suspension. Therefore, pending appeal before respondent No.2, the impugned order passed by respondent No.3, suspending the petitioner’s authorization, is suspended to enable the petitioner to continue as fair price shop dealer.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed in part.
As a sequel to the allowing of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.48249 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 16th December, 2014 IBL
[1] 2013 (1) ALT 339
[2] 2013 (5) ALT 237
[3] W.P.No.25823 of 2014&batch dt. 07.10.2014