HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY Writ Petition No.28927 of 2014 Date: 25-09-2014 Between:
S. Aruna Kumari .. Petitioner AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies, Hyderabad and 3 others .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY Writ Petition No.28927 of 2014 ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing proceedings in Roc/A3/5442/2014, dated 17-09-2014 suspending the licence along with show cause notice as illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction to set aside the said proceedings.
2. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as a fair price shop dealer for Shop No.90 of Bommarajupalle village, Peddapanjani Mandal, Chittoor District and has been distributing essential commodities without any complaint. While so, the authorisation of the petitioner was suspended vide proceedings in Roc/A3/5442/2014, dated 17-09-2014 by the 3rd respondent by issuing suspension order-cum-show cause notice basing on the report of the Tahsildar, Peddapanjani Mandal stating the she has committed certain irregularities. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the authorisation of the petitioner was suspended by the 3rd respondent on vague and baseless allegations and that the petitioner never committed any irregularities in distributing essential commodities.
4. Heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.
5. This Court held in K. Nirmala v. Revenue Divisional
[1]
Officer, Ananthapur and another , that an order of suspension of fair price shop authorization being punitive in nature cannot be resorted to on trivial and flimsy grounds and that unless the appointing authority or the disciplinary authority has the reason to believe that the fair price shop dealer has been indulging in serious irregularities and that his future continuance pending enquiry as a dealer will cause serious prejudice to the public interest, suspension cannot be resorted to.
6. A perusal of the impugned proceedings indicate that the 3rd respondent issued the suspension order-cum-show cause notice calling for explanation from the petitioner for the lapses alleged in the impugned proceedings. The grounds on which the suspension order was issued are vague, and hence, the impugned proceedings are liable to be suspended to the extent of suspension of authorisation of the petitioner only.
In view of above facts and circumstances, the proceedings in Roc/A3/5442/2014, dated 17-09-2014 issued by the 3rd respondent are set aside to the extent of suspension of authorisation only. However, this order will not preclude the 3rd respondent from passing appropriate orders in pursuance of the show cause notice dated 17-09-2014 after affording a reasonable opportunity of giving explanation and hearing to the petitioner.
With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed. No costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
A. RAJASHEKER REDDY, J Date: 25-09-2014 Ksn
[1] 2013 (1) Andhra Law Times 339