Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Modukuri Srinivasa Rao vs State Of Ap on 19 January, 2021
Bench: Kongara Vijaya Lakshmi
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has withdrawn the appeal and made an application dated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
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suspension order has since been withdrawn, the suspension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:
1996 (1) APLJ 285
"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
2015 (6) ALD 359
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
