Disposed

Gunji Radha Krishnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Jun 2021WP/10663/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the suspension of a fair price shop dealer's authorization. It held that while prior warning is not mandatory, suspension requires good faith and business of mind. The court directed the authority to complete the pending enquiry within three months and pass a reasoned order.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to complete the enquiry within three months and pass a reasoned order.

Gunji Radha Krishnaiah Vs State of Andhra… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO

¶2

Writ Petition No. 10663 of 2021

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. With their consent, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the admission stage.

¶5

This writ petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the order issued by the 3^rd respondent vide Rc.C.1494/2020 dated 06.04.2021 suspending the authorization of the petitioner in respect of F.P.Shop No.0918010, Vaddipalem Village, Buchireddypalem Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, without assigning any valid reasons and without following the procedure as contemplated under Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 (for short ‘the Control Order, 2018’), as illegal and arbitrary.

¶6

The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a permanent Fair Price Shop dealer of Shop No.0918010, Vaddipalem Village, Buchireddypalem Mandal, SPSR Nellore District and issued authorization under Clause 8 of the Control Order, 2018, which is valid upto 31.03.2015. He paid renewal fee lately on 20.04.2021. As per sub-clause 11(c) of Clause 8 of the Control Order, 2018, if a renewal application

¶7

¶8

is pending with the authorities, the validity of the authorization is deemed to be subsisting. But, the 3^rd respondent by impugned order dated 06.04.2021, while issuing show-cause notice of cancellation, suspended the fair price shop authorization pending enquiry, exercising power under Clause 8(4) of the Control Order, 2018.

¶9

The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that the suspension order is bereft of any reasons and contrary to the provisions of the Control Order, 2018 as well the law laid down by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of C.Durga Srinivasa Rao Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary (Civil Supplies), Secretariat Building, Hyderabad [W.P.No.30126 of 2015 dated 07.08.2015]. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶10

This Court is not persuaded with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the grounds raised in the writ petition challenging the suspension of the authorization pending enquiry by way of impugned order. It is not the case of the petitioner that the impugned suspension order is passed by the incompetent authority and contrary to the provisions of the Control Order, 2018 and in violation of principles of natural justice.

¶11

A perusal of Rule 8(4) of the Control Order, 2018 shows

¶12

that the appointing authority at any time in the public

¶13

¶14

interest or suo-motu or on receipt of complaint can either suspend or cancel the authorization of a dealer after making such enquiry as may be deemed necessary. Even issuing show-cause notice prior to suspension is not mandatory. However, after suspension, the authority shall issue showcause notice, call for explanation and then conduct a regular enquiry in order to establish guilt of the dealer. Though the prior show cause notice is not mandatory, suspension shall not be made as a matter of course but the authority shall apply its mind in respect of the irregularities alleged against the dealer and form an opinion as to whether placing the dealer under suspension is imperative and whether such suspension will help to conduct the disciplinary enquiry in a fair manner so as to prevent the errant dealer from meddling with the enquiry and tampering the evidence of the complaint. The authorities shall also consider that if the dealer is permitted to continue his dealership pending enquiry whether there is any possibility of his continuing his misdeeds such as black-marketing the essential commodities, not properly distributing the commodities to the cardholders and thereby causing inconvenience to them etc. If the authorities apprehend that the dealer may indulge in such activities, then by giving cogent reasons it may place the dealer under suspension pending disciplinary enquiry.

¶15

The only ground urged in the writ petition is that the impugned suspension order pending enquiry is without any

¶16

¶17

reasons. Generally, this Court would not conduct enquiry with regard to the correctness of the factual issues raised in the writ petition. It is for the appellate authority concerned to call for the records and verify the correctness of the impugned order.

¶18

However, this Court, in the interest of justice, felt it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the 3^rd respondent to complete the enquiry as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and pass appropriate reasoned order as per law and communicate the same to the petitioner.

¶19