Ramavath Sevya Naik, v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY WRIT PETITION No.28060 OF 2016 ORDER:

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings in Rc.No.4095/2016-B, dated 23.07.2016 issued by the third respondent, as illegal and arbitrary.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies (Andhra Pradesh).

3. A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner was appointed as Fair Price Shop Dealer in respect of Shop No.1 of Ayyannapalem Village, Bollapalli Mandal, Guntur District on permanent basis. It is the case of the petitioner that he has been distributing the essential commodities to the card holders without any complaint whatsoever. While so, on 10.06.2016, the fifth respondent visited the fair price shop of the petitioner and found variation in the stock. Basing on the report submitted by the fifth respondent, the third respondent issued a showcause notice dated 20.06.2016 calling for the explanation of the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 19.07.2016. Being not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the third respondent suspended his authorization in respect of Fair Price Shop No.1 on 23.07.2016.

4. It is not in dispute that the authorization of the petitioner expired on 31.03.2016. It is the case of the petitioner that he submitted an application in-time, but the same was misplaced in the office of the fifth respondent. Whether the petitioner has submitted an application within the time or not is purely a disputed question of fact, which cannot be gone into while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent challenging the order of the third respondent

dated 23.07.2016. The fact remains that the appeal is pending before the second respondent.

5. At the time of argument, the only relief sought by the learned counsel for the petitioner is to direct the second respondent to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents also consented for the same.

6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the submissions made by learned counsel for both parties, the second respondent is hereby directed to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the third respondent dated 23.07.2016 in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one (1) month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

8. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

________________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J Date: 22.08.2016 Ivd