Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1465 (AP)

D. Sarada v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2022-12-14

BATTU DEVANAND

body2022
JUDGMENT Battu Devanand, J. - This Writ Petition has been filed against the Order passed by the respondent No.3 vide Proceedings in RC.No.790/2022-D, dated 29.11.2022, wherein the authorization of the petitioner was suspended pending enquiry. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and perused the record. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the Fair Price Shop dealer of the Shop bearing No.0820027 of Valaparla, Martur Mandal, Bapatla District, for the last three years. She is distributing the essential commodities to the card holders without any complaints for all these days. The shop of the Petitioner was inspected by the Inspecting Authorities on 07.11.2022 and alleging certain violations of the Control Order, a report was submitted to the respondent No.3 on 08.11.2022. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 has issued a Show Cause Notice dated 16.11.2022 calling for the explanation of the petitioner. The petitioner submitted her explanation on 21.11.2022 and 28.11.2022. Considering the same, the respondent No.3 has passed the impugned Order suspending the authorization of the petitioner pending enquiry. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that without offering an opportunity to the petitioner for personal hearing, the impugned Order is passed, which is in violation of the principles of natural justice. 5. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, submits that the Order impugned in this Writ Petition is only a suspension of authorization pending enquiry, which is passed as an interim measure and the main enquiry is pending before the respondent No.3. At the time of the disposal of the main case, an opportunity of personal hearing will be provided to the petitioner as provided under law. 6. Considering the submission of the respective counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is an admitted fact that the Order impugned in this Writ Petition is an Order passed as an interim measure pending main enquiry. The respondent No.3 passed the impugned Order of suspension of authorization pending enquiry by exercising its incidental and auxiliary power, and as such, this Court is not inclined to interfere into the impugned Order at this stage. The respondent No.3 passed the impugned Order of suspension of authorization pending enquiry by exercising its incidental and auxiliary power, and as such, this Court is not inclined to interfere into the impugned Order at this stage. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Writ Petition can be disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.3 to conclude the disciplinary enquiry within a period of 90 days from the date of issuing show cause Notice i.e., 16.11.2022. 7. With the above observation, this Writ Petition is disposed of. 8. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this case shall stand closed.