Kare Chandrasekhar S/O. K.Chinna Ramaiah, v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh,

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM WRIT PETITION No. 40599 of 2015 ORDER:

The petitioner has been appointed as Fair Price Shop Dealer for Shop No.43 of Mustapalli Village and Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District. While so, based on the report submitted by the third respondent-Tahsildar, the second respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer issued the proceedings dated 10.02.2015 suspending the authorization of the petitioner alleging certain irregularities committed by him, to which, the petitioner submitted his explanation. It is stated that the petitioner was not issued with any show cause notice even prior to suspending of his authorization. Hence the present Writ Petition.

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. Relying on the decision of this Court in D.Sambasiva Rao Vs. Joint Collector, Guntur[1], which was subsequently followed by this Court in M.Venkata Ramaiah Vs. Joint Collector (CS), Ananthapur District[2], the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the maximum period of suspension of the authorization of a dealer can not be for a period of exceeding ninety days.

On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare places reliance on the judgment of this Court and this Court in the case of Joint Collector, Kurnool vs. A. Neelima[3] took a different view and opined that there is no hard and fast rule that the suspension pending enquiry cannot be beyond a period of maximum of 90 days and the opinion of the Division Bench that the order of suspension cannot be used as a pretext forindefinite postponement of the operation of the fair price shop dealership making it in effect cancellation of the dealership. Such an order of

suspension, like every executive and administrative act, has to be founded upon fair play and lack of arbitrariness. In that view of the matter, the continuation of order of suspension indefinitely would be only arbitrary and could not be allowed. However, what is reasonable period of suspension will vary from case to case depending upon various factors, though more often than not, a period of 90 days should ordinarily be sufficient to conclude the enquiry. In fact, the Division Bench referred to the case of Joint Collector, Kurnool (3 supra), which was relied upon by the learned single Judge of this Court in a judgment reported in D. Sambasiva Rao's case (1 supra). The judgment reported in M. Venkata Ramaiah's case (2 supra) had relied on in the case of D. Sambasiva Rao (1 supra). I n D.

Sambasiva Rao's case (1 supra), the order of the Division Bench of this Court explaining the judgment of the Division Bench in Joint Collector, Kurnool (3 supra) was not cited. The views expressed in D. Sambasiva Rao's case (1 supra), and M. Venkata Ramaiah's case (2 supra) being contrary to the views expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in Joint Collector, Kurnool (3 supra).

The material on record discloses that the petitioner has already submitted his detailed explanation denying the charges levelled against him. In view of the same, the second respondent-R.D.O is directed to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner and pass final order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by duly observing the principles of natural justice and affording an opportunity of being heard the petitioner.

Subject to the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage. Miscellaneous petitions pending consideration if any in the Writ Petition shall stand closed in consequence. No order as to costs. ____________________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM DATED: 18TH February, 2016.

Gk HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM WRIT PETITION No. 40599 of 2015 Date:18.02.2016 Gk.

[1] 2007(6)ALT 239 [2] 2014 (4) ALT 542 [3] APLJ-1996-1-285