HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI
WRIT PETITION No.1974 of 2020
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed questioning the suspension order dated 09.08.2019 suspending the authorization of the petitioner's fair price shop No.11504, Boreddigaripalle H/o Poolikunta village, Galiveedu Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, as illegal and arbitrary.
Case of the petitioner is that, he was appointed as fair price shop dealer for the subject shop in the year 2012; on 02.08.2019, the 5th respondent visited the subject fair price shop and took the signatures of the petitioner forcefully and left the shop and thereafter, the 3rd respondent issued the impugned order on 09.08.2019 suspending the authorization; the allegations that are made in the suspension order are very vague and the 5th respondent submitted a report with all false and baseless allegations; no details as to from whom the complaints have been received are mentioned in the suspension order; it is alleged that there is shortage of 1541.50 kgs of PDS rice, 51.9 kgs of sugar and 77.00 kgs of Rg. Dhal, which is not correct; due to change in the political scenario, the allegations are made against the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition.
The matter underwent about ten adjournments and when the matter came up for hearing on 27.01.2021, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though the impugned suspension order was passed suspending the authorization of the petitioner on 09.08.2019, no notice is issued to the petitioner till now. On that day, learned Government Pleader sought time to get instructions in the matter and again the matter was called on 29.01.2021. Even on that day, learned 2 KVL, J WP No.1974 of 2020 Government Pleader sought one more week for getting instructions in the matter. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Government Pleader submits that show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 02.02.2021.
The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even though the impugned order suspending the authorization of the petitioner was passed on 09.08.2019, no show cause notice is issued to the petitioner till 02.02.2021 and the enquiry is not yet completed. He further submits that as the enquiry is not contemplated within a period of 90 days, his authorization has to be restored. In support of his contention, he relied upon a judgment of this Court in A.Neelima v. Joint Collector, Kurnool1, wherein, it was held that 'if the enquiry is not completed within a period of 90 days from the date of suspension, the authorization has to be restored.' He also relied upon another decision of this Court in C.Durga Srinivas Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh2, wherein, it was held that 'enquiry should be completed as soon as possible but not later than ninety days from the date of suspension.' As against the judgment in A.Neelima's case (1 supra), W.A.No.112 of 1996 was filed and a Division Bench of this Court observed as follows:
"What is reasonable period of suspension will vary from case to case depending upon various factors, though more often than not, a period of 90 days should ordinarily be sufficient to conclude the enquiry".
As against the decision in C.Durga Srinivas Rao's case (2 supra) (WP.Nos.30126 and 30128 of 2014 and 2388, 2094 and 4204 of 1 1996 (1) APLJ 285 2 2015 (6) ALD 359 3 KVL, J WP No.1974 of 2020 2015 dated 07.08.2015), W.A.Nos.858 and 860 of 2015 were filed and a consent order was passed directing the respondents therein to complete the enquiry within a period of two months from the date of the order. As the order of the learned Single Judge is modified by the Division Bench, the proposition that the enquiry should be completed within a period of 90 days does not hold good. The AP State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 also does not specify any time limit.
As seen from the judgments of the Division Bench in W.A.Nos.858 and 860 of 2015 and 112 of 1996, there is no stipulation regarding completion of enquiry within a period of 90 days. Hence, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that as the enquiry has not been completed within a period of 90 days, his authorization has to be restored, does not have legs to stand. The Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018, however, does not stipulate any time frame for completion of enquiry. Hence, it cannot be contended that, merely because, the enquiry could not be completed within a period of 90 days, the suspension order has to be set aside and that the petitioner is entitled for supply of essential commodities. The period within which enquiry has to be completed will depend upon facts of each case and the cooperation of the dealer.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, as the impugned suspension order is dated 09.08.2019, the respondents/appropriate authority is directed to complete the enquiry, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of FOUR (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is also made clear that the petitioner shall not seek unnecessary adjournments and cooperate with the enquiry.
4
KVL, J WP No.1974 of 2020 The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petition pending, if any, in this writ petition, shall also stand closed of.
__________________________ KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J Date: 05.02.2021 BSS 5 KVL, J WP No.1974 of 2020 HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI WRIT PETITION No.1974 of 2020 54 Date: 05.02.2021 BSS