T.Appa Rao, S/O. Late Dandasi, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2023 Latest Caselaw 2782 AP

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 2782 AP
Judgement Date : 3 May, 2023

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

T.Appa Rao, S/O. Late Dandasi, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 3 May, 2023

         THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH


               WRIT PETITION No.9468 OF 2015

ORDER:

This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India is filed seeking to issue an appropriate order or direction

more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus

declaring the action of the respondents in not releasing the

essential commodities to the petitioner's Fair Price Shop,

Bhagavanpuram District on the ground that action has been

initiated Under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act as

illegal and arbitrary and consequential proceedings of the 4th

respondent appointed the 5th respondent as incharge dealer as

illegal and arbitrary.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the

respondents.

The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Fair

Price Shop dealer of Bhagavanpuram Village and has been

distributing the essential commodities to the card holders. When

the petitioner requested the 3rd respondent to renew the

authorization, the 3rd respondent orally said that as the 6-A case

was pending there is no necessity to renew the license.

Thereafter, the 4th respondent appointed the 5th respondent as

incharge dealer vide proceedings dated 02.09.2014. Aggrieved by

the said proceedings, the present Writ Petition is filed.

During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that the petitioner has not received any suspension

order or cancellation order, but the 4th respondent in his

proceedings dated 02.09.2014 stated that the authorization of

the petitioner was temporarily suspended. He further relied on

the orders of the Division Bench of the Court in Joint Collector,

Kurnool Vs. A.Neelima observed as follows:-

"the continuation of order of suspension indefinitely is whole arbitrary and cannot be countenanced. But, we must also rush to add that what is reasonable period of suspension will vary from case to case depending upon various factors, tough more often that not, a period of 90 days ordinarily be sufficient to conclude the enquiry".

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the

action of the respondents in suspending the authorization of

Fair Price Shop without completing enquiry within 90 days from

the date of suspension is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the

orders passed by this Court in the above said Judgment.

Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the

petitioner and the observations made by this Court in above

Judgment, the suspension proceedings of the 4th respondent

dated 02.09.2014 are set aside by directing the respondents to

conclude the enquiry and pass appropriate orders in the

matter. Till such time, the respondent authorities are directed

to restore the subject Fair Price Shop to the petitioner. No