Petitioner challenged suspension of his Fair Price Shop dealership alleging arbitrariness and violation of natural justice. Court examined allegations, noted lack of enquiry, and granted stay pending appeal disposal.
Stay of suspension order dated 15.10.2004; petitioner entitled to supply essential commodities pending appeal disposal.
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 EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO : 22597 of 2004
Between:
Ketamreddy Narendra Reddy, S/o. Gopal Reddy, Fair Price Shop Dealer, Thinnelapudi (V), Kota (M), Nellore District.
..... PETITIONER
AND
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, direction, order or orders more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to Rc.C.3481/2004 dt. 15-10-2004 and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary, malafide and contrary to the rules and violative of Principles of Natural Justice and consequentially set-aside the same in the interest of justice.
Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.A.CHANDRAIH NAIDU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES
The Court, at the stage of admission, made the following:
ORDER:
Petitioner is a Fair Price Shop Dealer of Thinnelapudi Village, Kota Mandal, Nellore District. The 2nd respondent suspended the dealership of the petitioner through his proceedings, dated 15.10.2004. Petitioner claims to have filed an appeal against the same before the 1st respondent together with an application for grant of stay. He contends that when the 1st respondent did not pass any orders in the stay petition, he filed W.P.No.20097 of 2004, and despite the directions issued through order, dated 02.11.2004, by this Court, the 1st respondent has not passed any orders so far.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.
Petitioner on oath submits that the 1st respondent has not disposed of the application for interim orders so far, despite the specific direction issued by this Court in W.P.No.20097 of 204. If the allegation of the petitioner is true, the 1st respondent can be said to have disregarded the orders of this Court. Petitioner cannot be required to suffer the detriment, on account of inaction on the part of the 1st respondent. A perusal of the order, dated 15.10.2004, passed by the 2nd respondent, discloses that the main allegation on the petitioner is that there is a discrepancy of 32 Kgs in the quantity of rice. When the total quantity of rice handled
by him, viz., 4,800 kgs is taken into account, the alleged discrepancy is within the limits. Other allegations are general and vague in nature. On the face of it, the order of suspension appears to be motivated and without any basis. If there were any serious irregularities on the part of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent ought to have issued notice and taken action after conducting enquiry.
Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the order, dated 15.10.2004, passed by the 2nd respondent shall stand stayed, pending disposal of the appeal by the 1st respondent, and that the petitioner shall be entitled to supply the essential commodities in the meanwhile. There shall be no order as to costs.
L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J
Dated : 08th December, 2004
Note: Office to furnish copy In two days. (B/o.) Ts
To
4 Two C.Cs. to the Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad(OUT).
5 Two C.D. copies.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the suspension of the petitioner's Fair Price Shop dealership was illegal, arbitrary, or without notice?
What relief is appropriate when a respondent fails to dispose of an appeal after court direction?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ketamreddy Narendra Reddy
The Joint Collector, Nellore District
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudur
The Mandal Revenue Officer, Kota (M)
L.NARASIMHA REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
