THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
Writ Petition Nos.28770, 28779, 28875 & 28916 of 2014
Between:
Smt.Vunnam Padmavathi and
Dated 10th October, 2014
…Petitioner
(W.P.No.28770 of 2014)
The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Department of Civil Supplies, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others …Respondents
(W.P.No.28770 of 2014)
Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Papaiah Peddakula Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies (AP) The Court made the following:
COMMON ORDER:
This batch of writ petitions is filed assailing separate, but identical orders passed by respondent No.4, whereby he has suspended the petitioners’ authorisations while issuing show-cause notices.
Though time was granted, no counter affidavits have been filed by the respondents.
A perusal of the impugned orders shows that they replicate with each other in every syllable without any variation except to the extent that respondent No.4 has jumbled up the imputations from one case to the other by changing their serial numbers. The substance of these imputations is that the petitioners are not maintaining official timings for distribution of essential commodities, that they are selling essential commodities at a higher price i.e., sugar at Rs.8/- instead of at Rs.6.75 ps and that they failed to exhibit toll free number in front of the fair price shop and stock-cum-price board is also not maintained. None of these imputations pertain to any specific instance of omission or commission by the petitioners, such as improper distribution of essential commodities to the card holders and diversion of the essential commodities in black market.
This Court has been time and again holding that suspension of authorisation pending enquiry has a serious adverse consequence on the fair price shop dealer and that the appointing or disciplinary authorities shall not resort to such drastic action based on trivial and frivolous allegations or imputations.
[1]
In K.Nirmala v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapur and another , this Court had an occasion to deal with a similar issue. It is inter alia held as under:
“This Court has time and again held that an order of suspension of fair price shop authorisation 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 authorisation 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.”
This Court has again reiterated the same in Thyrumala Setty Phanindra v. District Collector (CS), Guntur District and others
[2]
.
Applying the ratio laid down in the above two judgments to the facts of the present cases, I am of the opinion that the action of respondent No.4 in suspending the authorisations of the petitioners on the imputations, which are not only generic but also ex facie frivolous and trivial, cannot be sustained.
For the above-mentioned reasons, the impugned proceedings to the extent they relate to suspension of authorisations of the petitioners are set aside. The writ petitions are accordingly partly allowed.
As a sequel to disposal of the writ petitions, all the pending interlocutory applications in these cases shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
10th October, 2014
VGB
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
[1]
[2]
2013 (1) ALT 339
2013 (5) ALT 237