Dismissed

The Revenue Divisional Officer v. S Maheswara Reddy

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Apr 2023WA/393/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, in this writ appeal by the Revenue Divisional Officer, dismissed the appeal as lacking substance. The court affirmed the single Judge's order setting aside proceedings that had suspended the respondent's fair price shop authorization for over a year, citing precedent that indefinite suspension is arbitrary.

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications closed.

The Revenue Divisional Officer Vs S Maheswara… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE &

¶2

HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶3

WRIT APPEAL No.393 of 2023

¶4

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal, Nandyal District

¶5

... Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

S. Maheswara Reddy, S/o. Ramireddy, aged about 50 years, Fair Price Shop Dealer 1345022, Ramireddypalli village, Sanjamala Mandal, Nandyal District, and others

… Respondents

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

Dt: 17.04.2023

(Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)

¶12

This writ appeal, preferred by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal, would call in question the order dated 15.02.2023 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.3204 of 2023 setting aside proceedings RC.No.CS/47/2022 dated 21.01.2022, whereby the 2^nd respondent/appellant had suspended the authorization of the writ petitioner in respect of F.P. Shop No.1345022, Ramireddypalle village of Sanjamala Mandal, Kurnool District.

¶13

While setting aside the proceedings dated 21.01.2022, learned single Judge relied on a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Joint

¶14

Collector, Kurnool v. A. Neelima – 1996 LawSuit (AP) 956 ,

¶15

wherein the Division Bench had held that the order of suspension

¶16

2 HCJ & NJS,J W.A.No.393 of 2023

¶17

cannot be used as a pretext for indefinite postponement of the operation of the fair price shop dealership making it in effect cancellation of the dealership when the continuation of such order indefinitely is wholly arbitrary and cannot be countenanced; adding that what is reasonable period of suspension will vary from case to case depending upon various factors, though more often than not, a period of 90 days should ordinarily be sufficient to conclude the enquiry.

¶18

In the case at hand, admittedly, the order of suspension of authorization was passed on 21.01.2022, about one year and three months ago. Thus, the period of suspension here is continuing for much more period than the ordinary period of 90 days as has been observed by the Division Bench in the case referred supra.

¶19

Learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies would make a strenuous effort to convince us by pointing out merits of the case. However, when the enquiry proceedings are pending, we do not deem it appropriate to enter into the merits of the matter as the same would affect the case of either of the parties. In the course of hearing, we enquired learned Government Pleader as to what would be the reasonable period of suspension in his understanding depending upon the facts of the present case. Learned Government Pleader would not answer directly, but tried to take us again to the merits of the matter.

¶20

3 HCJ & NJS,J W.A.No.393 of 2023

¶21

In our considered view, learned single Judge has not committed any error in relying on the Division Bench judgment referred supra while setting aside proceedings RC.No.CS/47/2022 dated 21.01.2022 impugned in the writ petition.

¶22

Writ appeal, sans substance, is liable to be, and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending

¶23

miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶24

Sd/Sd/-

¶25

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ NINALA JAYASURYA, J

¶26

MRR

The Revenue Divisional Officer v. S Maheswara Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Revenue Divisional Officer v. S Maheswara Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Vs Mallavarapu Kesava Raya Samna

Nagiri Duggaiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Deputy Secretary

M/S. Durga Bhavani Suppliers Vs Sri Durga Malleswara Swamy Varla Devasthnam

Reddy Enterprises Vs the Union of India

Abdul Khader Mohammed Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

The Revenue Divisional Officer Vs B Venkateswarullu