Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1421 (AP)

Polu Srinu v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2023-11-01

VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

body2023
ORDER Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda, J. - The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief: 'to issue a writ or order more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ or order declaring the proceedings in Rc.F1/251/2023, dated 10.06.2023 issued by the 3rd respondent where under suspended the petitioner, MDU Operator for MDU No.PR05007, Kocharlakota Village, Donakonda Mandal, Prakasam District without enquiry and without giving an opportunity of personal hearing is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and against to the principles of natural justice and contrary to the Control Orders and to pass such other order or orders... ' 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 3rd respondent issued show cause notice dated 09.5.2023 framing seven charges against the petitioner with false allegations in respect of the stock at mobile unit of the petitioner and sought for a detailed explanation. For which, the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation on 05.06.2023. He further submits that without conducting any enquiry and without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner the respondents issued impugned proceedings dated 10.06.2023 suspending the petitioner as MDU operator by seizing the stock and vehicle of the petitioner. He further submits that as per Clause 8(4) of Andhra Pradesh Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018, after issuing show cause notice the respondents shall conduct proper enquiry and dispose of the proceedings against the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of initiation of proceedings. But for the reasons best known to the respondents, even after lapse of five months, the respondents neither conducted any enquiry nor disposed of disciplinary proceedings as contemplated under the Clause 8(4) of the Andhra Pradesh Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018. 4. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader submits that as per the amendment made to sub-clause 4 of Clause 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 notified in G.O.Ms.No.2 CA,F & CS (CS-I) Department, dated 22.01.2021, the respondents shall conduct enquiry and shall pass final orders within a period of three (03) months. But the respondents have not completed the enquiry as contemplated. But the respondents have not completed the enquiry as contemplated. He further submits that let there be a direction given to the respondents to complete the enquiry and to pass final orders after considering the explanation of the petitioner within a period of four (04) weeks. 5. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for the respondents, without going into the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition can be disposed of, directing the 3rd respondent to conduct a detailed enquiry, after considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner and after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the meanwhile, the respondents shall release the vehicle bearing registration No.AP 39 TQ 9690 in favour of the petitioner, subject to condition of furnishing personal or third party immovable property as security equivalent to the value of the stock seized in the said vehicle within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.