Petitioner, a fair price shop dealer, challenged the suspension of her authorization by directing that the suspension order be stayed pending the disposal of her pending appeal. The court quashed the suspension imposition.
Suspension order dated 19.11.2004 by Respondent No.2 stayed; first Respondent directed to dispose appeal without delay.
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 : 22245 of 2004
Between:
P. Dayamani, W/o. Yesaiah,
Kantamavaripalli Village, Chinnarlipadu Panchayat,
Kanigiri Mandal, Prakasam District.
..... PETITIONER
AND
.....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./2563/2004, dt. 19-112004 issued by the 2nd respondent and in action of the 1st respondent in the appeal 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 Kantamvaripalli Village, Chinnarlipadu Panchayat, Kanigiri Mandal, Prakasham District. Her 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. Her 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, she 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. She 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 she 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
Note: Office to furnish copy in three days. (B/o.) Ts
To
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to grant a stay on the suspension order of a fair price shop dealer pending disposal of the pending appeal.
Whether the suspension order was arbitrary by summarily rejecting the petitioner's explanation.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
P. Dayamani
Joint Collector, Prakasham District
Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur
L. Narasimha Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
