Vanka Ramulu, S/O.Sattiraju v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.2396 of 2015 BETWEEN Vanka Ramulu ... PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, A.P. Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and others.

...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:

ORDER:

Heard.

2. Petitioner states that he is a fair price shop permanent dealer for shop No.17 at Rayabhupalapatnam village of Peddapuram Mandal for the last 30 years and his licence is valid upto 31.03.2015. It is stated that on 11.09.2014 respondent No.4 has inspected the shop and on alleging irregularities the Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapuram, has issued show cause notice and ordered suspension of authorization of the petitioner under his order, dated 17.11.2014. Petitioner states that the proceedings under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act concerned were also initiated against the petitioner, which ultimately resulted in the order passed by the Joint collector,

dated 08.11.2014, whereby he directed confiscation of 40% of the seized stock. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that while he is prepared to the pay the value to the extent of 40% of the seized stock in lieu of confiscation order, he seeks revocation of his suspension. It is stated that petitioner has already made a detailed representation before respondent No.3 on 21.11.2014 giving explanation to all the three charges mentioned against him. Since no orders are passed by respondent No.3, the present writ petition is filed.

3. Learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies states that respondent No.3 will consider the representation and pass appropriate orders shortly.

4. In view of that, the writ petition is disposed of duly recording that petitioner has no grievance against the confiscation order to the extent of 40% of the value and that he is prepared to pay the said value in lieu of confiscation proceedings. Taking that aspect into consideration, respondent No.3 is directed to consider petitioner's representation, dated 21.11.2014 and pass appropriate orders thereon expeditiously preferably within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

_____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J February 9, 2015 LMV