Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Thyrumala Setty Phanindra,S/O ... vs The District Collector (Cs),Guntur ... on 8 April, 2013
Author: C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy
Bench: C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.10336 of 2013
08.04.2013
Thyrumala Setty Phanindra,S/o Bhaskara Rao
The District Collector (CS),Guntur District and two others.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri A.Sanjeev Kumar
Counsel for the Respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies
<Gist:
>Head Note:
?CITATIONS:
NIL
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside proceedings No.1330/2013-G, dated 26.03.2013, of respondent No.2, whereby he has kept the petitioner's fair price shop authorisation under suspension. Ordinarily, this Court seldom entertains Writ Petitions filed questioning order of suspension passed pending enquiry by the appointing authority. However, I am inclined to entertain this Writ Petition as an exception to this rule, for the reason that the only ground on which respondent No.2 has kept the petitioner's fair price shop authorisation under suspension is that he allowed one Tirumala Setty Kranthi Kumar to distribute the essential commodities and thereby, respondent No.2 has drawn an inference that the petitioner has allowed a benami to run the fair price shop. In the impugned order, it was clearly mentioned that in the report of the Deputy Tahsildar, Civil Supplies, City PDS, Zone-I, Guntur, he has mentioned that there was no variation in the stocks in the fair price shop.
Any order of suspension, even if the same is passed pending enquiry, results in serious adverse consequences to the fair price shop dealer. While exercising this power, the appointing authority needs to use a proper sense of proportion. The power of suspension cannot be exercised as a matter of course. The main purpose of keeping dealership under suspension pending enquiry is to prevent the dealer from tampering of the record. Therefore, only when serious allegations of commissions and omissions in distribution of the essential commodities in the fair price shop are made and a prima facie case is established against the dealer, the power of suspension of authorisation has to be exercised. There may be certain allegations which may not warrant immediate suspension. The case on hand falls in this category where, no suspension is warranted as, it is a matter of verification with reference to evidence whether the petitioner has permitted a benami to run the fair price shop or not. Considering the fact that the petitioner's fair price shop is run without any variations between the stock register and the ground stock and without there being any complaints, from any card holders, of improper distribution of commodities and in the absence of any allegation that the petitioner or the person who is allegedly running the fair price shop is indulging in acts, such as diversion of the essential commodities into black market, the hasty action of respondent No.2 in suspending the petitioner's authorisation cannot be sustained.
For the above-mentioned reasons, the impugned order of respondent No.2 is set aside. Respondent No.2 is, however, given liberty to hold a detailed enquiry and pass a final order after giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed.
As a sequel to the disposal of the Writ Petition, the WPMPs, if any, pending, are disposed of as infructuous.
__________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY 08th April 2013