Nikitha Mahila Mandali, v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 14139 of 2015 ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 5 and learned counsel for the 6th respondent.

2. The petitioner was appointed as a temporary dealer consequent to the 6-A proceedings launched against the 6th respondent on the recommendations of the 4th respondent. The authorization of the 6th respondent was initially suspended on 29.07.2011 pursuant to the recommendations made by the 5th respondent on 05.06.2011. The 6-A proceedings ended in confiscation of 100% of the seized stock to the Government. The 2nd respondent directed the 4th respondent to take disciplinary proceedings against the 6th respondent. The order in 6-A proceedings confiscating 100% of the seized stock to the Government has become final, as the 6th respondent did not prefer any appeal. While so, the 4th respondent issued notices to the 6th respondent on 28.07.2014 and to the petitioner on 01.08.2014. The said notice issued to the petitioner was challenged in W.

P.No.23167 of 2014 and the said writ petition was disposed of, at the admission stage, directing maintenance of status quo till the disposal of the proceedings by the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent ultimately passed an order on 10.12.2014 dropping the charges against the 6th respondent and restoring the authorization. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent and the said appeal was dismissed by order dated 25.04.2015. Challenging the same, this writ petition is filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the 6th respondent did not prefer any appeal against the order dated 04.12.2012 ordering the confiscation of 100% of the seized stock, the 4th respondent ought not to have passed an order of restoration of authorization of the 6th respondent and the 3rd respondent also ought

not to have confirmed the said order. The entire case of the petitioner rested on this sole ground.

4. When the 4th respondent thought it fit to drop the charges and restore the authorization of the 6th respondent and confirmation of the same by the 3rd respondent, this Court is not inclined to appreciate the ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as the petitioner is only a temporary dealer. It is clear from the record that two authorities, the respondents 3 and 4, concurrently held in favour of the 6th respondent and restored her authorization. The learned counsel for the petitioner based his argument on the ground that the 4th respondent, who acted as Sub-Collector and issued the initial show cause notice, was later on promoted as Joint Collector and confirmed the order dated 10.12.2014 passed by the present Sub Collector.

It is true that the initial show cause notice was issued by the present Joint Collector while he was working as a Sub Collector and later on after promotion passed an appellate order on 25.04.2015. When a show cause notice was issued by the competent authority, one cannot attribute motive when he was promoted and confirmed the order passed by a different officer on 10.12.2014.

5. In the circumstances, I see no ground to entertain the present Writ Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

________________________________ (A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J) 18th June, 2015 cbs

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO

WRIT PETITION No. 14139 of 2015

18th June, 2015 cbs