The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy

Writ Petition No.22168 of 2010

Date: 06-09-2010

Between:

L.Jhansi Rani

..... Petitioner

AND

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur, Guntur District and another

.....Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.K.Srinivas

Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies

The Court made the following:

Order:

Order, dated 27-08-2010, passed by respondent No.1, whereby the petitioner's fair price shop authorization is kept under suspension pending enquiry into the charges framed against her, is assailed in this Writ Petition.

I have heard Sri K.Srinivas, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies representing the respondents.

The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer of

Gogulamudi Village, Pedanandipadu Mandal, Guntur District. On the basis of an inspection conducted by the M.R.I and V.R.O on 17-08-2010, two charges have been framed against the petitioner and communicated to her vide showcause notice, dated 27-08-2010. Simultaneously, the impugned proceedings have been issued by respondent No.1, suspending the petitioner's authorization pending enquiry.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even on earlier occasion, as many as nine charges were framed against the petitioner and that on enquiry, nothing substantial was found against her and that the action of the respondents, in initiating fresh proceedings under the A.P.State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2008, against her and suspending her authorization pending enquiry into such proceedings, is arbitrary and mala fide.

Per contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies submitted that the impugned order is in the nature of an interim suspension and that the petitioner's substantive rights have not been affected. He further submitted that the petitioner has a remedy of statutory appeal and that she failed to avail the same.

As noted above, the order impugned in this Writ Petition pertains to suspension of petitioner's authorization pending enquiry into the charges framed against her. At this stage, it is not possible for this Court to examine the nature of those charges on merits in order to conclude whether the same are sustainable or not. The immediate purpose of suspension of authorization is to prevent the fair price shop dealer facing charges of irregularities from functioning as such till completion of the enquiry into the charges. This Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would not interfere

with the exercise of the powers by the competent authority unless it is satisfied that its action is patently arbitrary or mala fide. From the material available on record, I am unable to hold that the impugned order suffers from any of these vices.

The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. However, respondent No.1 is directed to complete the enquiry and pass a final order within a period of six weeks.

As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.28241 of 2010, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.

(C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J)

___________________________

6 th September, 2010 lur