Allowed

Kodamala Helen Kumari v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC23 Apr 2024WP/9500/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On a petition seeking restoration of authorization as a fair price shop dealer, the learned single judge provided an order instead of reasoning. This court disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondent to revoke the suspension order and restore the petitioner's authorization, relying on a case decided by its own Division Bench on the same facts.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent to revoke the suspension order dated 14.09.2022, restore the petitioner's authorization, and continue as a fair price shop dealer.

Kodamala Helen Kumari Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

/ /

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

™ENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 9500 OF

Between:

...Petitioner

AND

The Collector, Bapatia District, Bapatia AP.

¶11

The Collector (CS), Bapatia District, Bapatia , A.P.

¶12

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chirala Bapatia District, AP.

¶13

The Tahsildar, Inkollu Mandal, Bapatia District .A.P.

¶14

...Respondents

¶15

Petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pieased to issue an appropriate Order, Directions or Writ Particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS to declare the action of the Respondent in suspending the authorization of the petitioner bearing No. Rc.H/479/2022, dated 14.09.2022 same was confirmed by the 3'’^ respondent in Appeal No.1/2022/CS/BPT, dated 31.12.2023, without giving any opportunity as iliegal, arbitrary, unjust, in vioiation of Principles of Natural Justice and contrary to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System Control Order, 2018 and consequently

¶16

set aside same by directing the respondents to allot commodities to the Shop No 0825018, Koniki Village, Inkollu Mandal, Bapatia District.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 209d

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances slated in the affidavit fiied in support of the petition, the High Court may be pieased to pass orders direct the respondents authorities to continue the petitioner as Fair Price Shop Deaier of Shop No. 0825018 Koniki Viilage, Inkollu Mandal, Bapatia District, by suspending the impugned suspension order bearing No. Rc.H/479/2022, dated 14.09.2022 same was confirmed by the 3'“ respondent in Appeal No.1/2022/CS/BPT, dated 31.12.2023, pending disposal of the main Writ petition.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner; SRI SUDHAKARA RAO AMBATI

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE

¶22

The Court made the following order:

¶23

APHC010186332024

¶24

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶25

[3329]

¶26

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶27

WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶28

PRESENT

¶29

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶30

WRIT PETITION NO: 9500/2024

¶31

Between:

¶32

Kodamala Helen Kumari

¶33

...PETITIONER

¶34

AND

¶35

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶36

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶37

1.SUDHAKARA RAO AMBATI

¶38

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶39

1.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

¶40

2.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES 3.GP FOR REVENUE

¶41

4.GP FOR REVENUE

¶42

The Court made the following:

¶43

ORDER:-

¶44

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the^{ConstitutionofIndia,} seeking the following relief:

¶45

The same is not disputed by learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶46

In view of the same, let there be a similar order in this case, following the identical lines as in W.P.No.29374 of 2022, dated^13.09.2022

¶47

Accordingly, the present Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the 4 th respondent to revoke the suspension order dated 14.09.2022 issued against the petitioner and restore the authorization of the petitioner and continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer. However, the 3'”'^ respondent is directed to dispose of the Appeal filed by the petitioner within reasonable time in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶48

Registry is directed to attach a copy of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.29374 of 2022, dated 13.09.2022.

¶49

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ

¶50

petition shall stand closed.

¶51

Sd/-N.NAGAMMA assistant registrar

¶52

//TRUE COPY//

¶53

SECTION OFFICER

¶54

To. SECTION Consumer Affairs and Civil Supplies Department, State of Andhra Pradesh AP Secretariat, Velagapudi Amaravati, Guntur District

¶55

l: S K SSSSF""'- <“’1 9. Two CD Copies Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] ^ (Along with a copy of the order dated RAM 13.09.2022 in WP.No.29374 of 2022)

HIGH COURT

DATED:24/04/2024

ORDER

WP.No.9500 of 2024

ANO/y^
5 0 7 MAY 202^1 to,
'll
V^spatcva^^

¶61

DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

¶62

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

¶63

WRIT PETITION No.29374 of 2022

¶64

ORDER:

¶65

Heard Sri D. Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. Perused the record.

¶66

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as a fair price shop dealer of Shop No.0744023 of Murthujapuram village of Nuzendia Mandal, Guntur District. She is discharging her duties as fair price shop dealer without any complaints and she is distributing essential commodities to the card holders attached to her shop.

¶67

Learned counsel further submits that basing on the report of the 3'"' respondent to take disciplinary^action against the petitioner, the 2 nd respondent issued proceedings in Rc.M.1505/2021-B, dated 09.10.2021,

¶68

¶69

suspending the authorization of the petitioner pending enquiry on certain allegations. Thereafter, enquiry is not conducted and the petitioner was kept under suspension pending enquiry. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that suspending the authorization of^the petitioner pending enquiry for more than 90 days is illegal and against to the law declared by this Court and as such, the 2"^ respondent has to revoke the suspension order^and to restore the authorization of the petitioner to enable^the petitioner to continue as fair price shop dealer as usual by allowing this Writ Petition.

¶70

On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, on instructions, submits that basing on the report of the Tahsildar, Nuzendia to take disciplinary action against the petitioner, the 2""^ respondent^hasissued a show-cause notice dated 23.07.2021 to the petitioner calling her explanation within seven days from the^dateof receipt of the notice. She submitted explanation on

¶71

07.08.2021. Subsequently, the authorization of the petitioner was suspended pending enquiry on 09.10.2021. The learned Government Pleader submits that in view of the charges levelled against the petitioner, she is not entitled to continue as fair price shop dealer and sought to dismiss the writ petition.

¶72

The grievance of the petitioner is that even after lapse of eleven months, the alleged enquiry is not completed by the 2"^^ respondent, which is illegal and unjust.

¶73

Having heard the submissions of learned counsel appearing for both sides and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is an admitted fact that basing on the report of the 3’’^ respondent, the 2 nd respondent has issued show-cause notice to the petitioner. In the suspension order, it is mentioned that the petitioner has submitted her explanation on 07.08.2021. After submission of the explanation, the 2"^ respondent issued the impugned

¶74

¶75

proceedings dated 09.10.2021 suspending the

¶76

authorization of the petitioner pending enquiry.

¶77

In the considered opinion of this Court, the competent authority vested with power as disciplinary authority is bound to complete the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner/fair-price shop dealer alleging certain allegations within reasonable time. There should be no unreasonable delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Though, as contended by the respondents that no time limit is prescribed in relevant Control Order to complete disciplinary proceedings, in the considered opinion of this Court, the period of 90 days is reasonable safeguard for limiting the period of suspension, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s.Sukhwinder^Pal Bipan Kumar v. State of Punjab^ without deciding the truth or otherwise of the allegations made against the petitioner/fair-price shop dealer and keeping them under

¶78

AIR 1982 sc 65

¶79

¶80

suspension under the guise of pending enquiry, for an unreasonable period, would definitely violates the right to life of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as the source of income for survival of him and his family is the commission, that he gets by running the fair-price shop. As such, the disciplinary authority is under legal obligation to complete the enquiry and appropriate decision has to take to cancel the authorization or otherwise of the petitioner within reasonable period.

¶81

The issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the Judgment of this High Court in A.Neelima v. Joint Collector, Kurnool and others^. A learned single Judge of this Court held at para No.13 as extracted hereinunder:

¶82

Nevertheless, the power of suspension pending enquiry being one which is exercisable by the Appointing authority pending enquiry into or in contemplation of the suspension or cancellation of the authorisation, the ratio

¶83

^ 1996(1) APLJ 266

¶84

¶85

laid down by the Apex Court with regard to the exercise of the said power as in the passage quoted above would apply with equal force to the Control Orders, subject matter of consideration in these proceedings. Though no time limit is prescribed during which the authorisation of a fair price shop dealer can be suspended in the Control orders, it must be held as declared by Supreme Court in the passage quoted above, that the period of 90 days i:IS reasonable safeguard for limiting the period of suspension. During this period the Appointing authority is expected to complete the enquiry and take a decision as to cancellation or otherwise of the authorisation. If for any reason the enquiry is not completed within the said period of 90 days the order of suspension is liable to be revoked and should be revoked either by the appointing authority or the Appellate authority or the Revisionary authority.

¶86

Against the said Judgment rendered by the learned single Judge, an appeal was preferred by the Respondents therein, and while disposing the Writ Appeal by its Judgment in Joint Collector, Kurnool vs. A. Neelima , a Division Bench of this High Court observed at para No.2 as extracted hereinunder:

¶87

We have gone through the impugned judgment which is based upon the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s.Sukhwinder Pal Bipan Kumar v. State of Punjab (1) AIR 1982 (S.C.), 1965. In that case, the prescribed form of licence contained the clause for the period of suspension to be maximum for 90 days. A perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge shows that in essence and substance

¶88

^ 1996 LawSuit (AP) 956

¶89

¶90

what was meant by him is that the period of 90 days is a reasonable period to conclude the enquiry and the continuance of it beyond 90 days would be unreasonable and shall be, hence, taken as quashed. As we see it wasⁱⁿ the nature of a direction to complete the enquiry within⁹⁰ days than laying down a general proposition of law^thatthe maximum period of suspension could be only for 90 days. We agree with the view of the learned Single Judge^that the order of suspension 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. An order of suspension, like every executive and administrative act, has to be founded upon fair play and lack of arbitrariness. The continuation of order of the suspension indefinitely is whole arbitrary and cannot be countenanced. But we must also rush to add that what is reasonable period of suspension will vary from case^tocase depending upon various factors, though more often than not, a period of 90 days should ordinarily be sufficient to conclude the enquiry.

¶91

In the light of the observations of the Division Bench, as extracted supra, in the considered opinion^ofthis Court, as the enquiry is not completed by the respondents in the present case for more than 300 days, it has^to be construed that the enquiry is not completed within the reasonable period" and accordingly, this Court is holding that the 2 nd respondent failed to conclude the enquiry within "reasonable period" and the suspension order passed

¶92

¶93

against the petitioner on 09.10.2021 shall be revoked^and the authorization of the petitioner shall be restored.

¶94

For the reasons stated above, this writ petition is allowed directing the 2 nd respondent to revoke the suspension order dated 09.10.2021 issued against the petitioner and restore the authorization of the petitioner and continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer.

¶95