Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 782 (AP)

K. Nirmala v. Revenue Divisional Officer

2012-08-29

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

body2012
Judgment :- This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside the order dated 31.07.2012 of respondent No.2, whereby he has suspended the petitioner’s authorization pending enquiry for a period of 90 days and the order dated 08.08.2012 of respondent No.1, rejecting the petitioner’s application for stay pending the appeal. I have heard Sri K.Ram Mohan Chowdary, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the respondents. As regards the prayer for setting aside the order dated 31.07.2012 of respondent No.2, since the same is subject matter of appeal before respondent No.1, the petitioner is not entitled to question the same in this writ petition. However, with regard to the order dated 08.08.2012 passed by respondent No.2, I am of the opinion that the same cannot be sustained for two reasons, namely, that the order does not contain any reasons whatsoever for rejecting the stay application and secondly, the allegations on which the petitioner’s authorization was suspended are too trivial. A perusal of the order dated 31.07.2012 of respondent No.2 shows that the variation in respect of PDS AAY rice, wheat atta, sugar and pamoline oil is too marginal which probably fall within the permissible variation. The only commodity in respect of which the variation is somewhat substantial is kerosene oil in respect of which respondent No.2 has allegedly found 24 litres excess on comparison of closing balance with ground balance, out of 793 litres of kerosene oil issued to the petitioner. This Court has time and again held that an order of suspension of fair price shop authorization being punitive in nature cannot be resorted to on trivial and flimsy grounds and that unless the appointing authority or the disciplinary authority has the reason to believe that the fair price shop dealer has been indulging in serious irregularities and that his further continuance pending enquiry as a dealer will cause serious prejudice to the public interest, suspension cannot be resorted to. It is regrettable that this principle is being ignored by the competent authorities in many a case. The case on hand is a perfect illustration of how respondent No.2 has failed to make a rational approach by suspending the petitioner’s authorization on the ground of small variations. It is regrettable that this principle is being ignored by the competent authorities in many a case. The case on hand is a perfect illustration of how respondent No.2 has failed to make a rational approach by suspending the petitioner’s authorization on the ground of small variations. Respondent No.1 has also completely failed to consider this aspect and rejected the petitioner’s application for stay without even assigning any reasons therefor. For the aforementioned reasons, the order dated 08.08.2012 of respondent No.1 is set aside. The order dated 31.07.2012 of respondent No.2 is suspended pending enquiry. Respondent No.1 is directed to complete the enquiry and pass final orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondents are directed to continue the petitioner as the fair price shop dealer till conclusion of the enquiry and passing of final orders by respondent No.1. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. As a sequel to allowing the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.34264 of 2012 filed by the petitioner for interim relief shall stand disposed of as infructuous.