Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
D. Sambasiva Rao vs Joint Collector And Ors. on 21 December, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2005(1)ALD847, 2007(6)ALT239
Author: L. Narasimha Reddy
Bench: L. Narasimha Reddy
ORDER L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. The 2nd respondent passed an order, dated 4-6-2004, suspending the authorization of the petitioner, on certain allegations. On the same day, he issued a show-cause notice. Aggrieved by the order of suspension, petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent. Through Order, dated 9-9-2004, the 1st respondent remanded the matter to the 2nd respondent and directed him to conclude the proceedings, positively, within one week from the date of receipt of the order and to report compliance. Petitioner states that the 2nd respondent has not disposed of the proceedings as yet and that he is disabled from functioning as fair price shop dealer.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.
3. The authorization of the petitioner was suspended, way back on 4-6-2004. The 1st respondent refused to interfere with the same when the appeal was preferred by the petitioner. Instead, he has chosen to direct the 2nd respondent to conclude the proceedings 'positively within one week'. If the allegation of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent has not passed any orders as yet, it reflects sadly on the functioning of the office of the 2nd respondent. This Court is not inclined to verify and examine the reasons, if any, for non-compliance with the specific directions issued by the 1st respondent.
4. Further, a Division Bench of this Court in The Joint Collector, Kurnool v. A. Neelima, 1996 (1) APLJ 285, held that the maximum period of suspension of the authorization of a dealer can be ninety (90) days, and consequentially, if the proceedings are not concluded by the Revenue Divisional Officer, within that period, the suspension has to be revoked or set-aside.
5. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the order, dated 4-6-2004, passed by the 2nd respondent suspending the authorization of the petitioner is set aside, and the petitioner shall be entitled to function as fair price shop dealer. It shall, however, be open to the 2nd respondent to pass final orders in the proceedings initiated against the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.