This court dismissed a writ petition against an order suspending a ration dealer's authorization pending enquiry, holding it was not a final penalty and lacked infirmity warranting interference, while directing completion of the enquiry within 60 days.
Writ petition dismissed; 1st respondent directed to conclude enquiry within 60 days.
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.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM
WRIT PETITION No. 5368 of 2007
DATED: 16-03-2007
Between: G.Naga Lakshmi …Petitioner and The Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoni, Kurnool District and another …Respondents.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM
W.P.No. 5368 of 2007
ORAL ORDER:
On the basis of the complaint of the 2nd respondent regarding irregularities committed by the petitioner, a Fair Price Shop Dealer of Pedda Nealatur Village, Gonegandal Mandal, Kurnool District, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to submit her explanation. The petitioner submitted her explanation on 30-12-2006. Considering the report and the explanation, the 1st respondent found a prima facie case of irregularity and pending detailed enquiry into the allegations, passed the impugned order suspending her authorization for a period of three months.
The petitioner’s contention is that as the show cause notice was issued and explanation submitted, the impugned order is in the nature of a substantive penalty; as it is an order disclosing no reasons; a decision or analysis on the substance of the allegations; and is bereft of any conclusion as to the petitioner’s guilt, the impugned order is unsustainable.
Ex facie and even textually, the order is one of suspension pending detailed enquiry. It is not a final order of substantive suspension.
In the circumstances, the order suffers from no infirmity warranting interference of this Court. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission, after hearing the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies also. The 1st respondent is
directed to expeditiously and in any event within a period of (60) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order conclude the enquiry against the petitioner, into the allegations leading to the impugned order of suspension. There shall be no order as to costs.
_______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J
16-03-2007 GRR
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an order suspending authorization pending detailed enquiry is a substantive penalty requiring reasons and dismissal of the writ petition.
G.Naga Lakshmi
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoni, Kurnool District
another
GODA RAGHURAM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
