Gundapati Hanumantha Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

¶1

APHC010105652019

¶2

[3333]

¶3

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

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 4753/2019

¶7

Between:

¶8

GUNDAPATI HANUMANTHA RAO,, S/O. RAJENDRA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCU-AGRUCULTURAL LABOUR, R/O. GUDIVADA (URBAN), 19TH WARD, WHITE CARD HOLDER, CARD BEARING NO.TAP068306227896, GUDIVADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, STATE OF A.P.

¶9

KANDIKANTI PAUL,, S/O. JAYAPAL, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCCU- DAILY WAGE EARNER, WHITE CARD HOLDER, CARD BEARING NO. WAP0683041A6333. R/O. 19TH WARD, H.NO.19/979, BETHAVOLU, GUDIVADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, STATE OF A.P.

¶10

...PETITIONER(S)

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, A.P.SECRATARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶13

EXOFFICIAO PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, A.P.SECRATARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶14

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, (CIVIL SIPPLIES WING), MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT, A.P.

¶15

THE JOINT COLLECTOR, (CIVIL SIPPLIES WING), MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT, A.P.

¶16

2

¶17

VS,J W.P.No.4753 of 2019

¶18

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CIVIL SUPPLIES WING, GUDIVADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, A.P.

¶19

THE TAHASILDAR, CIVIL SIPPLIES WING, GUDIVADA TOWN, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶20

KANNAMAREDDY RAJESH, S/O. NAGESWARA RAO, OCCU- FAIR PRICE DEALER OF SHOP NO.41, HINDU, AGE- NOT KNOWN, GUDIVADA TOWN, KRISHNA DISTRICT, STATE OF A.P.

¶21

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶22

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Oder or Direction more particularly one the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in allowing the second Revision filed by the 7th respondent vide his Memo.No.74/CS/2018, dt.15.02.2019 especially when the Criminal Case is pending against the 7th respondent in Crime No.189 of 2014, dt.06.10.2014, as bad, illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and consequently set aside the Order passed by the 2nd respondent vide his Memo.No.74/CS/2018, dt.15.02.2019

¶23

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶24

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant leave to the petitioner herein/RespondentNo.5 in the Writ Petition No. 4753 of 2019 to file counter affidavit in the above Writ Petition and pass

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶26

1.G VIJAYA BABU

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶28

1.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES (AP)

¶29

The Court made the following:

¶30

3

¶31

VS,J W.P.No.4753 of 2019

¶32

ORDER:

¶33

The present writ petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶34

<…a issue a Writ, Oder or Direction more particularly one the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents 2 to 5 in not completing the enquiry against the 6^th respondent pursuant to the suspension pending enquiry of his Fair Price shop dealerships in view of the suspension pending enquiry on 08.11.2014 as bad, illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 5 to complete the enquiry against 6^th respondent as expeditiously as possible as his dealership was suspended pending enquiry was as long back as on 08.11.2014 ….=

¶35

Brief facts of the case are as follows:

¶36

a) The petitioners are residents of Gudivada Town in Krishna District and are living in the 19^th Ward. They are white ration card holders and obtained ration from Shop No.41 maintained by the 7^th respondent.

¶37

b) The grievance of the petitioners is that the 7^th respondent’s Fair Price Shop licence was cancelled by the R.D.O., Gudivada on 24.08.2015 on the allegation of seeding bogus Aadhar numbers to ration cards. Aggrieved thereby, the 7^th respondent filed an appeal before the Joint Collector, Krishna and the same was dismissed vide Rc.B2/SRA/44/2015, dated 30.09.2017. The said order was confirmed by the District Collector, Krishna Collector vide orders dated 10.11.2018. Aggrieved by the same, the 7^th respondent filed a second revision before the 2^nd respondent and the same was allowed vide order dated 15.02.2019.

¶38

4

¶39

VS,J W.P.No.4753 of 2019

¶40

c) The case of the petitioners is that after suspension of the 7^th respondent’s authorization, FIR No.189 of 2014 was registered against him basing on the complaint given by the Tahsildar, Gudivada under Sections 419, 420, 468, 120-B r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 43, 65, 66-D of the Information and Technology Act, 2000. A charge sheet was filed on 19.06.205 and the case is pending before the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gudivada, wherein the 7^th respondent is shown as accused No.21. Challenging the order dated 15.02.2019 passed by the 2^nd respondent allowing the second revision, despite the pendency of the criminal case in Crime No.189 of 2014 dated 06.10.2014, the present writ petition is filed.

¶41

The 5^th respondent filed a counter affidavit reiterating the facts as stated by the petitioner. It is stated that the 7^th respondent filed W.P.No.12889 of 2015 challenging the suspension order dated 08.11.2014 passed by the R.D.O., Gudivada, the said writ petition was disposed of along with a similar other writ petition i.e., W.P.No.12878 of 2015, vide common order dated 28.04.2015 with the following direction:

¶42

<In view of the above, these writ petitions are disposed of directing the Revenue Divisional Officer to complete the enquiry within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the enquiry is not completed within the time stipulated above, the order of suspension will stand revoked and the petitioners shall be allowed to resume their dealerships, pending enquiry.=

¶43

It is further stated in the counter that pursuant to the above order, enquiry was conducted twice by the then R.D.O., Gudivada on 19.06.2015

¶44

5

¶45

VS,J W.P.No.4753 of 2019

¶46

and 27.06.2015 and the authorization of the 7^th respondent was cancelled vide Rc.D/757/2014, dated 24.09.2015. The appeal filed by the 7^th respondent before the Joint Collector, Krishna District under Section U/s. 20(2)(i) of A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2008 was dismissed. His first revision before the District Collector, Krishna under Section 21(1) of A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 was also dismissed. However, the second revision filed before the Principal Secretary to the Government, Consumer Affairs, Food & Civil Supplies Department, was allowed vide Memo No.74/CS-I/2018, dated 15.02.2019, holding that the R.D.O. must necessarily await the verdict of the criminal Court, as he cannot hold a parallel enquiry. The earlier orders of the R.D.O., Joint Collector, and District Collector were set aside. It is also stated that in a similar issue decided on 02.12.2014 in W.P.No.36757 of 2014, it was held that the R.D.O. must await the outcome of the criminal case. The authorization of the 7^th respondent is presently kept in abeyance, subject to the criminal case in C.C. No. 777 of 2016 (Crime No. 189 of 2014).

¶47

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.

¶48

Though the notice served on the 7^th respondent, there is no appearance on his behalf.

¶49

As per the said counter affidavit, it appears that the second revision filed by the 7^th respondent was allowed vide Memo dated 15.02.2019, and consequently the orders of the Joint Collector, Krishna dated 30.09.2017 and

¶50

6

¶51

VS,J W.P.No.4753 of 2019

¶52

the District Collector dated 10.11.2018 were set aside, subject to the result of the criminal case pending against the dealer.

¶53

The grievance of the petitioners is only to the extent that the 2^nd respondent has not completed the enquiry, but has instead allowed the second revision preferred by the 7^th respondent subject to the result of the criminal case, which is bad in law.

¶54

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the disciplinary proceedings and criminal proceedings are independent, and pendency of the criminal case does not bar continuation of disciplinary enquiry.

¶55

In view of the above, the Memo No.74/CS-I/2018, dated 15.02.2019 of the 2^nd respondent is set aside to the extent it allows the 7^th respondent’s revision subject to the pendency of the criminal case. The matter is remanded back to the 1^st respondent for fresh enquiry into the matter. The said enquiry shall be completed within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, it is made clear that pendency of the criminal case as against the 7^th respondent shall not have any bearing on the enquiry to be conducted by the 1^st respondent. It is also made clear that the 7^th respondent shall continue till finalization of the enquiry by the 1^st respondent.

¶56

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶57

7

¶58

VS,J W.P.No.4753 of 2019

¶59

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶60

______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶61

Date: 12.11.2025 KGR

Gundapati Hanumantha Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gundapati Hanumantha Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. a.N.R.Infra Projects, Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

A N R Infra Projects Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri Vsr Constructions Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Baby Sarojini Vs the State of Ap

M/S.Sew Infrastructure Limted Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Talari Rajesh Kumar Vs the State of Ap