Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 364 (AP)

Maddu Deva Sahayam v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2019-12-09

M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

body2019
ORDER : M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is filed, questioning the action of the 3rd respondent in not restoring the authorization of Fair Prince Shop No. 24, Daggubadu Village, Karamchedu Mandal, Prakasam District under the guise of continuation of suspension of authorization vide proceedings Rc. J/1074/2014, dated 28.8.2014, and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary and consequently set aside the same by directing the 4th respondent to allot essential commodities to the petitioner's fair price shop. 2. It is the case that the petitioner's authorization was suspended during pendency of proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 by the Revenue Divisional Officer under Control Order, 2008. Aggrieved by the same order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Joint Collector vide Appeal in Rc.CS2/304/2014, whereby the Joint Collector remanded the matter to the disciplinary authority i.e., Revenue Divisional Officer and since the date of its remand on 2nd December, 2017 it is pending with Revenue Divisional Officer. The Revenue Divisional Officer, the 3rd respondent herein did not pass any order till date though the application of Revenue Divisional Officer to pass order within 90 days atleast from the date of remand. 3. Therefore, passing an order, suspending the authorization of petitioner, during pendency of enquiry under Section 6-A of E.C. Act, is a serious irregularity and in contravention of principles laid down in CCS Memo No. 21/100/2015-AD.1 PP & CCS dated 28.9.2015, issued only in pursuance of order passed by High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in WP No. 30126 of 2014 dated 4.9.2015. 4. As per Clause 'q' of memo, the proceedings under Section 6-A of E.C. Act are separate, as it empowers to decide as to whether the seized commodities are ordered to be confiscated or otherwise and no order of suspension/cancellation of authorization be issued, based on report. Thus, the action of third respondent in suspending the authorization of petitioner is in contravention of their own Circular issued by Civil Supplies Department, referred above which was issued based on order in WP No. 30126 of 2014. 5. Therefore, the order under challenge, suspending the authorization of petitioner, during pendency of enquiry under Section 6-A of E.C. Act, without initiating disciplinary proceedings under Clause 20(i) of Control Order, 2018 is illegal and irregular. 6. 5. Therefore, the order under challenge, suspending the authorization of petitioner, during pendency of enquiry under Section 6-A of E.C. Act, without initiating disciplinary proceedings under Clause 20(i) of Control Order, 2018 is illegal and irregular. 6. Therefore, the order passed by third respondent exercising power under Clause 8(4) of Control Order, 2018, consequent order passed under Clause 8(5) of Control Order, 2018 are hereby set aside, holding that they are illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Circular issued by first respondent itself. 7. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, setting aside the proceedings Rc.J/1074/2014, dated 28.8.2014, declaring the same as illegal and arbitrary. There shall be no order as to costs. 8. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.