Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
P. Lakshminarasaiah vs The Joint Collector And Anr. on 15 October, 1990
Equivalent citations: 1991(1)ALT174
Author: Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri
Bench: Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri
ORDER Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.
1. The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Joint Collector, Cuddapah, the first respondent in reference No. A. 2132/90 dt. 11-8-90 by praying for a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the second respondent in suspending his authorisation on 11-8-90 and the order of the first respondent referred to above, as illegal and void and for a further direction to the respondents to supply essential commodities to him.
2. The petitioner was appointed as a Fair-price shop dealer in 1985. On 11-2-90, the authorisations in respect of ward Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 were suspended. On 11-9-90 the 2nd respondent suspended the authorisation of the petitioner on a report by the Mandal Revenue Officer that the petitioner was involved in a case under section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act inasmuch as he diverted the essential commodities for black-marketing. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Joint Collector, Cuddapah, the first respondent herein. On 24-8-90, the first respondent rejected the appeal and the stay petition filed along with the same, but directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to dispose of the disciplinary proceedings pending before him within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
3. Sri D. Sudarshan Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that disciplinary proceedings were not initiated against the petitioner and even after the impugned order was passed, the Revenue Divisional Officer, has not initiated the proceedings, let alone completing the same. The learned Government Pleader fairly concedes that no disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner even after the order of the first respondent.
4. It is rather unfortunate that due to inaction of the second respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer, in not initiating any disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, the authorisation of the petitioner who is alleged to have been involved in diversion of essential commodities to black-marketting, will have to be restored. It is also surprising as to why the 2nd respondent has not chosen to initiate disciplinary proceedings even after the order of the 1st respondent, the Joint Collector, who passed the impugned order as long back as on 24-8-90. As the position stands, the petitioner cannot be suspended pending enquiry under Section 6-A.
5. In law, it is open to the Revenue Divisional Officer to initiate disciplinary proceedings against a fair-price shop dealer for cancellation of authorisation on the ground of violation of Control orders or conditions of authorisation. Pending such proceedings, he can also suspend the authorisation of the dealer. The initiation of 6-A proceedings itself does not authorise the Revenue Divisional Officer to suspend the authorisation of the fair-price shop dealer. In this case, the authorisation was suspended pending 6-A proceedings. Even after the 1st respondent directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to complete the disciplinary proceedings, no disciplinary proceedings were initiated and completed within the time granted by the 1st respondent. In these circumstances. I have no option but to quash the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent on 11-8-90. as confirmed by the 1st respondent.
6. It is, however, made clear that this order does not preclude the second respondent from initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, if the circumstances so warrant, and to suspend the authorisation of the petitioner pending disposal of the disciplinary proceedings.
7. The writ petition is allowed accordingly No costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 250/.