Allowed

M.Ram Kumar, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC22 Dec 2010WP/28690/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that impugned suspension orders were unsustainable as they failed to specify whether the suspension was substantive or interim. Petitions allowed; orders set aside; enquiry to be completed within two months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned suspension orders set aside; respondents directed to complete inquiry and pass final orders within two months with opportunity of being heard; petitioners continued as dealers.

M.Ram Kumar, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN

¶3

PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶4

WRIT PETITION Nos.28690, 28719, 28727, 28728, 28739 and 28742 of 2010

¶5

W.P.No.28690 of 2010 Between:

M. Ram Kumar

..... Petitioner

AND

State of A.P., Department of Consumer Affairs, Food & Civil Supply Department, rep., by its Commissioner, Hyderabad & others.

¶10

.....Respondents

¶11

Counsel for the petitioners : Sri Vedula Srinivas

¶12

Counsel for the respondents : AGP for Civil Supplies

¶13

The Court made the following :

¶14

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.28690, 28719, 28727, 28728, 28739 and 28742

¶15

of 2010

¶16

COMMON ORDER:

¶17

In these Writ Petitions, the common issue that arises for consideration is regarding the nature of the order passed by respondent No.3.

¶18

All the impugned orders are in similar terms except to the extent of the nature of the food grains and their quantities. It has been inter alia mentioned in the impugned orders that on the allegations made against the petitioners in connection with the running of their respective fair price shops, their authorizations are placed under suspension with immediate effect.

¶19

Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that under clause 5(5) of the A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008, respondent No.3 is empowered to exercise the power of suspension of authorization as a substantive punishment after following the procedure prescribed therein, namely; holding enquiry wherein an opportunity of being heard will be afforded to the fair price shop dealers. He further submitted that as respondent No.3 has not indicated in the impugned orders as to whether he has exercised the power of suspension as a measure of substantive punishment or pending enquiry, the same cannot be sustained. He also submitted that in the event of respondent No.3 exercising power of suspension even pending enquiry, he shall issue a notice and follow the procedure as prescribed in the above referred clause. No counter affidavits have been filed.

¶20

A perusal of the impugned orders show that respondent No.3 has

¶21

not indicated therein whether the order of suspension is substantive or interim in nature. As respondent No.3 is vested with the power to pass the orders of suspension of either nature, it is incumbent upon him to indicate therein the nature of exercise of his power. As he failed to do so, the impugned orders cannot be sustained.

¶22

The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, on instructions, stated that respondent No.3 intended the suspension orders to be interim in nature and the enquiry initiated by him is pending.

¶23

In the light of the above submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader, all these Writ Petitions are allowed by setting aside the orders of suspension with the direction to respondent No.3 to complete the enquiry and pass final orders, after giving the petitioners an opportunity of being heard, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till completion of enquiry and passing of final orders, the petitioners shall be continued as fair price shop dealers.

¶24

As a sequel to disposal of the writ petitions in the manner indicated above, the respective miscellaneous applications pending in this batch of cases stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶25

____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶26

Date: 22.12.2010 ES

M.Ram Kumar, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Ram Kumar, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dilip Kumar Agarwal (Hindu) Vs The Assistant Engineer (Operations)

Smt. Matta Veera Veni Vs TheGovt. of a.P., rep. by its Secretary

Mithula T Vs The Asistant Director of Mines and Geology., D.No.4-49-18

M/s. Sri Minerals, rep. by its Managing Partner, Vs The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology

G.Darshan Vs The Addl. Asst. Engineer, Operation

M/s.Transworld Garnet India Private Limited Vs The Director of Mines and Geology,Department of Mines