The High Court set aside an order suspending a fair price dealer's authorization indefinitely because it lacked a specified time limit contrary to the State Control Order, while allowing the inquiry to proceed.
The impugned order dated 27.02.2009 is set aside; the Writ Petition is allowed; respondents permitted to proceed with enquiry.
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.5099 of 2009
ORDER:
Petitioner is a fair price shop dealer for distribution of essential commodities to the cardholders of Vaddupalli Village, Atmakur Mandal, Anantapur District. In the Writ Petition, she has questioned order, dated 27.02.2009 passed in Rc.No.98/09(D) by the second respondent – Tahsildar, Atmakur Mandal, Anantapur District, suspending her fair price shop authorisation on the allegation that she has illegally diverted PDS rice to the black market.
At the stage of admission, this Court passed interim orders on 13.03.2009 suspending order, dated 27.02.2009 passed by the second respondent.
When the matter is taken up today, it is represented by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents that in view of the interim orders of this Court, the petitioner is being continued as a fair price shop dealer.
As per the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 framed under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the power of the Tahsildar to
suspend the fair price shop authorisation of a dealer is limited to the period of 90 days.
In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, there is no reference to any order passed by the first respondent – Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur, taking any further action in continuation of order, dated 27.02.2009 passed by the second respondent.
In the impugned order, there is no indication of time with regard to suspension of fair price shop authorisation of the petitioner, as permissible under the aforesaid Control Order. As it is not in dispute that the petitioner is being continued as a fair price shop dealer pursuant to the interim orders of this Court and as no further orders are passed by the first respondent, I deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order by permitting the respondents to proceed with the enquiry on the allegations levelled against the petitioner.
For the aforesaid reasons, order, dated 27.02.2009 passed by the second respondent in Rc.No.98/09(D) is hereby set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed. However, it is made clear that on the allegation of diversion of rice to the black market by the petitioner, this will not preclude the respondents from conducting enquiry and passing appropriate orders. No order as to costs.
R.SUBHASH REDDY, J
2nd JANUARY, 2012.
kvni
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the order suspending the fair price shop authorization for an indefinite period without further action by the competent authority violates the time limits imposed by the Control Order.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioner
Respondents
R.Subhash Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
