HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI
WRIT PETITION No.986 of 2021
ORDER:
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. At their request, the Writ Petition is being disposed of at the admission stage.
The inaction of respondents, in supplying essential commodities to the petitioner even after expiry of 90 days from the date of suspension of the authorization through proceedings dated 19.07.2020, is questioned in the Writ Petition as being illegal and arbitrary.
Petitioner was appointed as dealer of fair price shop No.0881037, Devudu Cheruvu, Ongole Town. Alleging variations in the stock, respondent No.3 issued suspension order along with show cause notice dated 19.07.2020. Against which, an appeal, along with stay application, was preferred before the District Collector. Alleging non-disposal of either appeal or stay application by the District Collector, the petitioner filed W.P.No.13240 of 2020 which was disposed of on 19.08.2020 directing the appellate authority to dispose of the statutory appeal in a time bound manner, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of the order. The petitioner states that he submitted explanation to the show cause notice on 22.07.2020. On 27.11.2020, the petitioner has withdrawn the appeal and made an application dated 27.11.2020 before respondent No.2 to direct respondent 2 Nos.3 and 4 to supply essential commodities but no orders have been passed thereon. Hence the Writ Petition.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that, where enquiry could not be completed within 90 days, the respondents were directed to complete the enquiry within a period of 90 days and, in the interregnum period, the respondents were directed to supply essential commodities. In support of his contention, he relied upon a judgment of this Court in A.Neelima v. Joint Collector, Kurnool1.
Admittedly, challenging the suspension order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the District Collector but, without taking to the logical end, he withdrew the appeal. Therefore, the direction in W.P.No.13240 of 2020 to dispose of the statutory appeal in a time bound manner will not come to the aid of the petitioner. As the appeal filed challenging the suspension order has since been withdrawn, the suspension order dated 19.07.2020, holds good as on date. As the suspension order is still in force, the petitioner is not entitled for supply of essential commodities. The suspension order shows that there are variations in rice, sugar, red gram dal and chena dal.
As against the judgment in A.Neelima (1 supra), W.A.No.112 of 1996 was filed and a Division Bench of this Court observed as follows:
1
1996 (1) APLJ 285 3 "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".
Another Single Judge of this Court in C.Durga Srinivas Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh2, 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 C.Durga Srinivas Rao (2 supra) (WP.Nos.30126 and 30128 of 2014 and 2388, 2094 and 4204 of 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.
In view of 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, 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 2 2015 (6) ALD 359 4 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 19.07.2020, the respondents/appropriate authority is directed to complete the enquiry, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight 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.
The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Miscellaneous Petition pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs.
________________________________ KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J Date:19.01.2021 Usd