The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.39906 of 2014 Dated: 26.12.2014 Between:
Smt.T.Nagarathnamma ..
Petitioner and The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Prl.Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and 2 others.
..
Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.P.R.Balarami Reddy Counsel for the respondents: A.G.P. for Civil Supplies (AP) The Court made the following:
Order:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside the proceeding bearing Rc.No.264/2014 (B), dated 15.12.2014, of respondent No.3.
I have heard Mr.P.R.Balarami Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies (AP) representing the respondents.
The petitioner is the authorised dealer of the fair price shop at Sunkireddypalli Village, Madakasira Mandal, Anantapur District. She has earlier filed Writ Petition No.27332 of 2014 feeling aggrieved by non-supply of the stocks of essential commodities to her fair price shop by respondent No.3. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court with the observation that as the petitioner’s authorization was valid and subsisting, the respondents are bound to supply essential commodities to her fair price shop.
Subsequently, one M.Bhaskar Reddy, claiming to be a card holder attached to the petitioner’s fair price shop, filed Writ Petition No.33679 of 2014 with the allegation that though the petitioner’s fair price shop authorization was suspended, on the strength of the direction issued by this Court in WP.No.27332 of 2014, the respondents are seeking to supply essential commodities to her. He has averred that, on 13.08.2014, respondent No.3 has suspended the petitioner’s authorization and that, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to be continued as the fair price shop dealer. This Court has disposed of the said Writ Petition by Order, dated 11.11.2014, with the observation that, if the petitioner’s authorization was suspended on 13-08-2014, unless the said order was subsequently stayed by this Court or any other forum, she is not entitled to be continued as the fair price shop dealer. Purporting to follow the said order, respondent No.3 has issued the proceeding in RC.No.264/2014 (B), dated 15-12- 2014, whereby he has removed the petitioner from the fair price shop dealership of Sunkireddypalli Village and appointed the fair price shop dealer of Yerrabommanahalli Village as the in-charge.
The petitioner has filed a copy of the purported order of suspension, dated 13-08-2014. Indeed, the petitioner has alleged that the said order was passed after 16-09-2014 and was antedated, as if the same was passed much prior to the filing of WP.No.27332 of 2014, with a view to over reach Order, dated 16-09-2014, passed therein.
In support of the above plea of the petitioner, her Counsel has invited this Court’s attention to the endorsement in Rc.No.
/2014(B), dated NIL, which referred to the Order passed by this Court in WP.No.27332 of 2014, as if the same was passed on 16-08-2014 and received by respondent No.3 on 28-08-2014. As the order in WP.No.27332 of 2014 was passed on 16-09-2014, the question of respondent No.3 receiving the same on 28.08.2014 does not arise.
Having perused the endorsement containing incorrect and inaccurate facts, this Court feels that respondent No.3 is not acting in a fair and transparent manner. Be that as it may, even if it is assumed that respondent No.3 has passed the order suspending the petitioner’s fair price shop authorization on 13-08-2014, as such an order was passed only for a period of 90 days, the same had expired on 13.11.2014. Therefore, the impugned proceeding, dated 15.12.2014, issued by respondent No.3 purporting to rely upon the order passed by this Court in WP.No.33679 of 2014 is preposterous, to say the least.
The fact that the petitioner’s authorization was suspended for a period of 90 days was not brought to the notice of this Court in WP.No.33679 of 2014. As the order of suspension, dated 13-08-2014, has died its natural death with the expiry of the period of 90 days, the petitioner is entitled to be continued as the fair price shop dealer. Respondent No.3 has evidently taken shelter under the order passed by this Court in WP.No.33679 of 2014 to ensure displacement of the petitioner. I find this conduct of respondent No.3 as wholly mala fide.
Furthermore, respondent No.3 has no authority or jurisdiction to pass the impugned order as it is respondent No.2, who is the appointing authority vested with the disciplinary power. It is incomprehensible as to how respondent No.3 can take an independent decision by replacing the petitioner with another dealer. The entire conduct of respondent No.3 is highly suspicious and his bona fides are doubtful as the impugned order passed by him is not only illegal but also without jurisdiction.
For the foregoing reasons, the impugned proceeding bearing Rc.No.264/2014 (B), dated 15.12.2014, of respondent No.3, is set aside. The respondents are directed to continue the petitioner as the fair price shop dealer.
The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed with costs of Rs.10,000/- payable by respondent No.3 to the petitioner from his personal funds.
As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.50041 of 2014, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.
(C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Dt: 26th December, 2014 lur