Disposed

H.B. Saraswathi, v. The state of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Feb 2022WP/39158/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court addressed the petitioner's challenge to a suspension order regarding her authorization as a Fair Price Dealer. The Court directed the respondents to complete pending disciplinary proceedings or, if allegations are disproved, allow the petitioner to continue the dealership based on a subsequent appointment.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to complete disciplinary proceedings or continue petitioner's appointment if allegations are disproved; petition disposed.

H.B. Saraswathi, Vs The state… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI WRIT PETITION No.39158 of 2015

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

The Writ Petition is filed questioning the order of the 4^th respondent issued in Rc.No.760/2015/B1, dated 17.07.2015 suspending the authorization of the petitioner with regard to Fair Price Shop No.28 of 74 Udegolam Village, Rayadurg Mandal, Anantapur District as illegal and arbitrary.

¶5

The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as permanent Dealer of the subject shop on 25.05.2008 and a show-cause notice-cum-suspension order was issued to the petitioner on 17.07.2015 alleging irregularities in distribution of essential commodities, basing on the report submitted by the 5^th respondent dated 10.07.2015. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are not grave in nature warranting suspension and the petitioner has not violated any of the Clauses of Control Order and authorization. The petitioner submitted her explanation on 28.07.2015 through registered post acknowledgment due and also presented personally before the 4^th respondent. As no enquiry is conducted till date, challenging the said suspension order, the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶6

When the Writ Petition came up for admission on 02.12.2015, an interim order was passed suspending the suspension order. It was also made clear that the said order would not preclude the respondents from issuing a show-

¶7

¶8

cause notice and conducting enquiry into the allegations levelled against the petitioner.

¶9

When the matter was listed on 08.11.2021, learned Government Pleader sought time to get instructions in this matter. Today, learned Government Pleader has produced the written instructions given by the Tahsildar Sri Surya Pratap, Incharge Tahsildar of Rayadurg, which are dated 06.11.2021, bearing Rc.No.419/2015/CS.

¶10

As seen from the said instructions, the petitioner has resigned to the post of Fair Price Shop Dealer due to health problems on 29.02.2016 and thereafter, the subject shop was allotted to Smt. C. Renukamma and she also resigned in the month of August, 2019. After her resignation, the subject shop was again given to the petitioner by proceedings dated 31.08.2019 and that the petitioner is at present working as Dealer to the subject shop bearing No.1218028. The said instructions issued by Sri R. Surya Pratap, Tahsildar I/c, Rayadurg, does not whisper about the enquiry that is initiated against the petitioner. Learned Government Pleader does not have any instructions with regard to the pendency or otherwise of the enquiry initiated against the petitioner. The written instructions only show that the petitioner was given dealership of the subject shop vide proceedings dated 31.08.2019, which is the subsequent event after filing of the Writ Petition.

¶11

¶12

In view of the facts and circumstances, if the enquiry which is initiated against the petitioner pursuant to the suspension order dated 17.07.2005 is pending, the respondents are directed to complete the same strictly in accordance with law. If the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner are concluded and the allegations against the petitioner are disproved, the petitioner may be continued to run the subject shop pursuant to the proceedings dated 31.08.2019. It is made clear that if there is no valid authorization in favour of the petitioner as on today, she is not entitled to run the subject shop.

¶13

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.

¶14

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶15

_________________________________ KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J

¶16

Date: 17.02.2022 Ks

¶17

¶18

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

¶19

WRIT PETITION No.39158 of 2015

¶20

Date: 17.02.2022

¶21

H.B. Saraswathi, v. The state of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H.B. Saraswathi, v. The state of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P. Bhavani, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/S Sai Traders Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B.Shanthabai Vs The District Collector

Rampa Vishnu Rao Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

R.Yashodamma, W/o. R.Jayappa Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

A.Vijaya Lakshmi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh