In a writ petition, the High Court issued a stay order on the suspension of a petitioner's authorization as a Fair Price Shop Dealer, directing the 1st respondent to dispose of the pending appeal without further delay.
Stay order on the suspension dated 19.11.2004; 1st respondent directed to dispose of the appeal and stay petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND THREE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO : 22243 of 2004
Between:
K. Cirra Reddy, Venkata Swami Reddy, K.P. Agraharam Village, Veligandla Mandal,
Prakasam District.
..... PETITIONER
AND
1 Joint Collector, Prakasham District (Civil Supplies), Ongole. 2 Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur, Prakasam District.
.....RESPONDENT(S)
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to Issue a writ or order more particularly one in the nature writ of Mandamus or an appropriate writ or order declaring the proceedings in R.C.F. /2527/2004, Dt. 19.11.2004 issued by the 2nd respondent and inaction of the 1st respondent in not disposing the appeal and stay petition filed by the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.
Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTI Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES
The Court, at the stage of admission, made the following :
ORDER:
Petitioner is a Fair Price Shop Dealer of K.P.Agraharam Village, Veligandla Mandal, Prakasham District. His authorization was suspended by the 2nd respondent through order, dated 19.11.2004. Petitioner claims to have preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent together with an application for grant of stay. His grievance is that the 1st respondent has not passed any order so far, either in the appeal or in the stay petition, and in the meanwhile, he is disabled from functioning as dealer.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.
Petitioner has already availed the remedy of appeal against the order of suspension. He also filed an application for grant of stay. By the very nature of it, an application for grant of stay needs to be disposed without any avoidable delay. If it is kept pending unduly, the very purpose of filing the appeal may be defeated.
A perusal of the order of suspension, in the context of the feasibility of granting any interim orders, pending the appeal, discloses that the charges are not prima facie grave. The explanation offered by the petitioner on various charges was rejected under the sweeping observation ‘not satisfactory’. It is true that elaborate consideration is not expected at this level. However, ignoring a valid explanation, just with an observation that it is not satisfactory, would defeat the very purpose of issuance of show cause notice. Further, there are no allegations that the petitioner
has diverted the essential commodities to black market or that he has not distributed the essential commodities.
Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the order of suspension, dated 19.11.2004, passed by the 2nd respondent shall remain stayed, pending disposal of the appeal by the 1st respondent. There shall be no order as to costs.
L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J
Dated : 03rd December, 2004
Ts
To
4. 2CD copies
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to dispose of the appeal and stay petition pending against the suspension of the petitioner's authorization as a Fai
K. Cirra Reddy
Joint Collector, Prakasham District (Civil Supplies), Ongole
Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur, Prakasam District
L. Narasimha Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
