Vadde Gopal v. The State Of Telangana,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM WRIT PETITION NO.8093 of 2016 ORDER:

The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as fair price shop dealer of Shop No.533 of Devender Nagar, Gajularamaram Village, Qutbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District about six years back. The 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Malkajgiri Division, issued show cause notice dated 29.01.2016 alleging certain irregularities. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 06.02.2016 denying the charges made against him. After completion of enquiry, the 3rd respondent vide order dated 09.02.2016, cancelled the authorization of the petitioner. Against the same, the petitioner filed an appeal along with an application for stay before the 2nd respondent. When the 2nd respondent was not taking any steps on the appeal filed by him, the petitioner filed W.P.No.6627 of 2016 and this Court vide order dated 01.03.

2016 disposed of the writ petition directing the 2nd respondent to dispose of the appeal within a period of 2 weeks. However, pending appeal before the 2nd respondent-Joint Collector (CS) II, the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, served a copy of order canceling the petitioner's Fair Price Shop authorization vide order in Proc.No.C/102/2016, dated 02.03.2016. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the 2nd respondent, who is the appellate authority, had not stated any reasons for not considering the appeal and the stay application. While pointing out the defects in the order passed by the primary authority, i.e., the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapuram, canceling the fair price shop dealership of the petitioner, the learned counsel relied on a judgment of this Court in Anab-E-Shahi Wines and another vs.

Deputy Commissioner[1] wherein this Court had taken a view that it would be unreasonable if the stay is not granted when the appeal is pending before the lower authorities, and contended that the order of the primary authority as well as the appellate authority are liable to be interfered with.

On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies contended that the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 30.10.2014 in W.A.No.1346 of 2014 had interfered with the order dated 26.09.2014 of the learned single Judge in W.P.No.29209 of 2014 granting stay while disposing of the writ petition. He also relied on the judgment dated 14.05.2015 of another Division Bench in W.A.No.382 of 2015.

In the above two writ appeals cited by the learned Government Pleader Anab-E-Shahi Wines case (1 supra) was not cited. Apart from that, the judgment in Writ Appeal No.1346 of 2014 is not applicable to the present set of facts for the reason that this Court had directed the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal and not to stay the application, because the order cited, which is applicable for refusing to stay, itself is a non speaking order and no useful purpose would be served once again directing the appellate authority to make a reasoned order except to multiply the litigation. In that view of the matter, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible, since the subject matter of the appeal before the appellate authority, who is the Joint Collector, is only cancellation of a fair price shop dealership license. However, in the interregnum period to prevent appointment of any third party as fair price shop dealer, interest of justice would be served in granting stay of the order of the lower authorities.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent-Joint Collector to dispose of the appeal itself in a time bound manner. As the right of appeal being a statutory right and in view of the judgment of this Court in Anab-E-Shahi Wines case (1 supra) I deem it appropriate to grant stay of the order of the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, pending disposal of the appeal by the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent shall dispose of the appeal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

_____________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J.

15th March, 2016 Ssv [1] (1995) 98 STC 386 (AP)