Allowed

D. Sambasiva Rao, v. The Jt. Collector, Guntur

Telangana HC21 Dec 2004WP/23844/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner challenged the suspension of his fair price shop dealer authorization. The High Court held that since proceedings were pending beyond the statutory maximum suspension period of ninety days following specific directions to conclude them, the suspension order was set aside, restoring the petitioner's rights to function.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 04.06.2004 suspending the petitioner's authorization is set aside, and the petitioner is entitled to function as a fair price shop dealer.

D. Sambasiva Rao, Vs The Jt. Collector… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2004)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO : 23844 of 2004

¶7

Between:

¶8

D. Sambasiva Rao, S/o. Subaiah, Irukupalem Village, Muppalla Mandal, Guntur District.

¶9

..... PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The Joint Collector, Guntur, Guntur District.

¶12

2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur, Guntur District.

¶13

3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Muppalla Mandal, Guntur District.

¶14

.....RESPONDENTS

¶15

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 any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not completing the enquiry and passing of final orders as directed by the 1st respondent in A.C.D. Dis No. 19/2004-S7, dt. 09. 09.2004 as illegal arbitrary and consequently set aside the orders of the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Rc.No. 2425/04/B, dt. 04.06.2004 pending enquiry before the 2nd respondent and to pass such other order or orders.

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.SRINIVAS

¶17

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

¶18

The Court, at the stage of admission, made the following:

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

The 2^nd respondent passed an order, dated 04.06.2004, suspending the authorisation of the petitioner, on certain allegations. On the same day, he issued a Show-Cause Notice. Aggrieved by the order of suspension, petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1^st respondent. Through Order, dated 09.09.2004, the 1^st respondent remanded the matter to the 2^nd respondent and directed him to conclude the proceedings, positively, within one week from the date of receipt of the order and to report compliance. Petitioner states that the 2^nd respondent has not disposed of the proceedings as yet and that he is disabled from functioning as fair price shop dealer.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.

¶22

The authorization of the petitioner was suspended, way back on 04.06.2004. The 1^st respondent refused to interfere with the same when the appeal was preferred by the petitioner. Instead, he has chosen to direct the 2^nd respondent to conclude the proceedings ‘positively within one week’. If the allegation of the petitioner that the 2^nd respondent has not passed any orders as yet, it reflects sadly on the functioning of the office of the 2^nd respondent. This Court is not inclined to verify and examine the reasons, if any, for non-compliance with the specific directions issued by the 1^st respondent.

¶23

Further, a Division Bench of this Court in THE JOINT COLLECTOR, KURNOOL V. A.NEELIMA held that the maximum period of suspension of the authorization of a dealer can be ninety (90) days, and consequentially, if the proceedings are not concluded by the Revenue Divisional Officer, within that period, the suspension has to be revoked or set aside.

¶24

For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the order, dated 04.06.2004, passed by the 2^nd respondent suspending the authorisation of the petitioner is set aside, and the petitioner shall be entitled to function as fair price

¶25

shop dealer. It shall, however, be open to the 2^nd respondent to pass final orders in the proceedings initiated against the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶26

L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J

¶27

Dated : 21^st December, 2004

¶28

Note: Office to furnish copy In three days. (B/o.) Ts

¶29

¶30