The Court declined to entertain the writ petition challenging the suspension order of a fair price shop dealer. Instead, it directed the respondent authority to conduct the pending inquiry and complete it within three months.
The writ petition was dismissed; the respondent authority was directed to complete the inquiry within three months.
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 A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.31340 of 2017
ORDER:
The petitioner is a resident of Kanumpalli Village, Garladinne Mandal in Anantapur District and he was appointed as a fair price shop dealer during the year 2016. While so, his shop was inspected on 08.08.2017 by the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar along with the Village Revenue Assistant and noticed some irregularities. Based on the same, the Tahsildar submitted a report on 08.08.2017. On the basis of the report of the Tahsildar, 6A proceedings were initiated and a show cause – cum – suspension order was issued on 11.08.2017 by the fourth respondent. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the present suspension order was issued simply based on the 6A proceedings and though the petitioner submitted his explanation on 18.08.2017, no enquiry is taken up.
A perusal of the impugned order shows that the suspension was not passed merely due to pendency of 6A proceedings, but independent action is sought to be taken by the fourth respondent for which a show cause notice is issued. Since the petitioner had already submitted the explanation on 18.08.2017 and enquiry has to be taken up by the fourth respondent, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present
2
Writ Petition, but directs the fourth respondent to complete the same as expeditiously as possible, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. The miscellaneous petitions pending in this Writ Petition, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J)
15.09.2017 Note: Issue C.C in three days. B/o. vs
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the show cause – cum – suspension order requires an interlocutory stay or intervention.
Petitioner (Fair Price Shop Dealer)
Fourth Respondent
A. R amaligrameswara Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
