THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.37050 of 2014 Dated: 03.12.2014 Between:
Tummaganti Appalanaidu .. Petitioner and The Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam, and others.
.. Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. K. Jyothi Prasad For Mr. K. Sarvabhouma Rao 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 proceedings in Rc.No.9564/2014/C dated 04.10.2014 of respondent No.1, whereby he has suspended the petitioner’s fair price shop authorization.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
A reading of the impugned order shows that the substantive ground on which the petitioner’s fair price shop authorization has been suspended is registration of a case under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities At, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’). In my opinion, respondent No.1, being appointing authority, has to apply his mind independently without being solely guided by the registration of case under Section 6-A of the Act. Such application of mind will reflect in the order, only if he discusses the nature of the allegations and records his prima facie conclusion that the dealer has indulged in irregularities and that his further continuance pending enquiry is not in public interest.
[1]
In K. Nirmala v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapur , this Court held as under:
“This Court has time and again held 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 further continuance pending enquiry as a dealer will cause serious prejudice to the public interest, suspension cannot be resorted to. It is regrettable that this principle is being ignored by the competent authorities in many a case. The case on hand is a perfect illustration of how respondent No.2 has failed to make a rational approach by suspending the petitioner’s authorization on the ground of small variations. Respondent No.1 has also completely failed to consider this aspect and rejected the petitioner’s application for stay without even assigning any reasons therefor.”
I n Thyrumala Setty Phanindra v. District Collector (CS), [2] Guntur District , this Court, while reiterating the ratio in K. Nirmala (1 supra), further held as under:
“Any order of suspension, even if the same is passed pending enquiry, results in serious adverse consequences to the fair price shop dealer. While exercising this power, the appointing authority needs to use a proper sense of proportion. The power of suspension cannot be exercised as a matter of course. The main purpose of keeping dealership under suspension pending enquiry is to prevent the dealer from tampering with the record. Therefore, only when serious allegations of commissions and omissions in distribution of the essential commodities in the fair price shop are made and a prima facie case is established against the dealer, the power of suspension of authorisation has to be exercised. There may be certain allegations which may not warrant immediate suspension. The case on hand falls in this category where no suspension is warranted, as it is a matter of verification with reference to evidence whether the petitioner has permitted a benami to run the fair price shop or not. Considering the fact that the petitioner's fair price shop is run without any variations between the stock register and the ground stock and without there being any complaints, from any card holders, of improper distribution of commodities and in the absence of any allegation that the petitioner or the person who is allegedly running the fair price shop is indulging in acts, such as diversion of the essential commodities into black market, the hasty action of respondent No. 2 in suspending the petitioner's authorization cannot be sustained.”
The impugned order passed by respondent No.1 is in the teeth of the law laid down by this Court in the above-mentioned judgments with regard to suspension of authorization of fair price shop dealers. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed.
As a sequel to the allowing of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.46374 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 3rd December, 2014 IBL
[1] 2013 (1) ALT 339
[2] 2013 (5) ALT 237