The Joint Collector, ... vs Mrs.Kona Eswaramma
2023 Latest Caselaw 941 AP

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                        &
                  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

                           WRIT APPEAL No.46 of 2009
                              (Through physical mode)

The Joint Collector & Additional District
Magistrate, Vizianagaram.
                                                               .. Appellant

       Versus
Mrs. Konda Eswaramma,
F.P.Shop Dealer (under suspension)
Boddavalasa Village, Denkada Mandal,
Vizianagaram District, and others.
                                                             .. Respondents


                                  ORAL JUDGMENT
                                  Dt: 16.02.2023
(per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)


       This writ appeal is preferred challenging the order dated 04.07.2008

passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.16129 of 2006.

2.     Facts

of the matter, briefly stated, are that the Fair Price Shop

authorization of the 1st respondent herein/writ petitioner was suspended vide

order dated 25.10.2004 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram,

against which she preferred an appeal before the Joint Collector & Additional

District Magistrate (appellant herein and 1st respondent in the writ petition),

who allowed the appeal setting aside the order of suspension passed by the

Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 25.10.2004, and directed the Revenue HCJ & NJS,J

Divisional Officer to impose a suitable penalty on the writ petitioner as per

clause 17(c) of Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System Control

Orders, 2001. This order of the appellate authority, directing imposition of

penalty on the writ petitioner, has been challenged in the writ petition.

3. The learned single Judge quashed the order of the appellant/appellate

authority upon finding that the appellate authority departed from every

warranted discipline of quasi judicial proceedings and regressed into

speculation and once having found that the writ petitioner was entitled to

benefit of doubt and that the appeal preferred by the writ petitioner deserves

to be allowed, the appellate authority could not have directed the authority to

impose a suitable penalty on the writ petitioner. Accordingly, the learned

single Judge allowed the writ petition and further imposed costs of Rs.2,500/-

on the appellate authority.

4. While we find no error in the order of the learned single Judge in

quashing the order of the appellate authority, we feel that imposition of costs

on the appellate authority is not proper. Merely because an order passed by

the quasi judicial authority did not find favour with the writ Court, it does not

mean that the authority which has passed the said order should be saddled

with costs. It is to be seen that the order impugned in the writ petition was

passed by a statutory authority in exercise of appellate jurisdiction, and

merely because such an order was found not legally justifiable, the authority HCJ & NJS,J

should not be saddled with costs. Thus, on the issue of imposition of costs

on the appellate authority, we are not in agreement with the learned single

Judge.

5. Accordingly, while not interfering with the order under appeal on

merits, we set aside the order only to the extent of imposition of costs of

Rs.2,500/- on the appellant.

6. Accordingly, this writ appeal is allowed in part. No costs. Pending

miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ NINALA JAYASURYA, J PSA HCJ & NJS,J

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

WRIT APPEAL No.46 of 2009

(per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)

Dt: 16.02.2023

PSA