Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sri.S.Topi Valli, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 5 February, 2021
Bench: Kongara Vijaya Lakshmi
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
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
1996 (1) APLJ 285
2015 (6) ALD 359
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.
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
KVL, J
WP No.1974 of 2020
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI
WRIT PETITION No.1974 of 2020
Date: 05.02.2021
BSS
