Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : M.H.S.ANSARI
A.Neelima - Appellant
Versus
Joint Collector, Kurnool - Respondent
Decided On : 12-22-95
FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALERS - SUSPENSION OF AUTHORISATION - CONTROL ORDER - POWER OF APPOINTING AUTHORITY - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - INTERIM DIRECTIONS - GUIDELINES FOR EXERCISE OF POWER.
Fact of the Case:
Petitions filed by fair price shop dealers challenging the suspension of their authorizations by the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) based on reports from the Mandal Revenue Officer or the Vigilance Cell of the Civil Supplies Department. Petitioners also sought interim directions to continue as fair price shop dealers till the final disposal of the proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
1. The power of suspension pending enquiry is a necessary concomitant of the power to grant a privilege or a license. 2. The appointing authority has the power to suspend the authorization pending enquiry, but this power cannot be exercised in a routine way or as a matter of course. 3. The appointing authority must exercise the discretion reasonably, bonafide, and without negligence, considering the circumstances of the case. 4. The suspension pending enquiry should not be allowed to continue for any unduly long period. 5. The authorities are bound to complete the enquiry as early as possible, and any undue delay constitutes abuse of power. 6. The power of suspension pending enquiry is not exercisable unless there is a breach and the breach is of such a nature that it must entail the cancellation of the license. 7. The appointing authority should not rely solely on reports from subordinate authorities without conducting an independent enquiry. 8. If the appointing authority relies on a report from a subordinate authority, a copy of the report must be furnished to the fair price shop dealer. 9. The court will not grant interim directions to fair price shop dealers to continue as such during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings.
Issues: 1. Whether the appointing authority can suspend the authorization of a fair price shop dealer pending enquiry? 2. If so, what are the parameters of such power? 3. Whether the principles of natural justice apply to the exercise of the power of suspension pending enquiry? 4. Whether the court can grant interim directions to fair price shop dealers to continue as such during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The power of suspension pending enquiry is a necessary concomitant of the power to grant a privilege or a license. 2. The appointing authority has the power to suspend the authorization pending enquiry, but this power cannot be exercised in a routine way or as a matter of course. 3. The appointing authority must exercise the discretion reasonably, bonafide, and without negligence, considering the circumstances of the case. 4. The suspension pending enquiry should not be allowed to continue for any unduly long period. 5. The authorities are bound to complete the enquiry as early as possible, and any undue delay constitutes abuse of power. 6. The power of suspension pending enquiry is not exercisable unless there is a breach and the breach is of such a nature that it must entail the cancellation of the license. 7. The appointing authority should not rely solely on reports from subordinate authorities without conducting an independent enquiry. 8. If the appointing authority relies on a report from a subordinate authority, a copy of the report must be furnished to the fair price shop dealer. 9. The court will not grant interim directions to fair price shop dealers to continue as such during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings.
Final Decision: The petitions were disposed of at the admission stage with directions to the RDO to dispose of the enquiry proceedings expeditiously and to the Appellate and Revisionary authorities to dispose of the appeals and revisions and/or the Stay applications pending before them expeditiously in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made by the court.
( 2 ) TO appreciate the contentions raised, if would suffice to mention that the petitioners in all the Writ Petitions are fair price shop dealers who have been granted permanent authorisations as fair price shop dealers. In W. P. Nos. 27464, 27471 of 1995, w. P. Nos. 26677 of 1995, W. P. No. 26711 of 1995 and W. P. No. 26712 of 1995, the authorisation of the petitioner has been suspended by the Revenue Divisional officer basing on the report of the Mandal revenue Officer or the Vigilance Cell of the civil Supplies Department. In so far as w. P. No. 26716 of 1995 is concerned, the revenue Divisional Officer suspended the authorisation as fair price shop dealer of the petitioner on the basis of a report submitted by the Mandal Revenue Officer and aggrieved against the said orders of suspension, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Clause 17 of the Control order before the Joint Collector who is the prescribed Appellate Authority who dismissed the Appeal after hearing the parties. Aggrieved against the same the petitioner in W. P. No. 26716 of 1995 filed a revision under Clause 18 of the control order before the Collector as the revisionary Authority. In all these cases along with the Appeals, filed by the petitioners before the joint Collector and in the Revision filed by the petitioner in w. P. No. 26716 of 1995, in the Revision filed before the Collector, applications for Stay of the operation of the Orders impugned in those proceedings have been filed. The grievance of the petitioners in these Writ petitions is that the Appointing Authority i. e. , the Revenue Divisional Officer passed orders of suspension without applying his mind and solely based upon a report submitted to him either by the concerned mandal Revenue Officer or the Vigilance cell of the Essential Commodities and that in the Appeals preferred against such orders, the Joint Collector has not granted interim stay which is empowered to grant under the Control Order and similarly the collector in the Revision pending before him has not passed orders in the interim application filed for stay pending disposal of the Revision Petition before him. In short the grievance of the petitioners on this count is the inaction of the respective authorities and non application of mind in passing orders which has the affect of suspending the authorisation of the petitioners as fair price shop dealers. In all he Writ Petitions, the petitioners have sought interim directions for suspension of the operation of the proceedings impugned in the Writ Petitions and thereby sought directions to permit them to continue as fair price shop dealers till the final disposal of the Proceedings pending at various stages before the respective authorities.
( 3 ) THE question with regard to grant of interim orders by this Court has been considered by a Division Bench of this High court in the Judgment reported in b. Maheswaramma vs. M. R. Ramasubbamma (1) 1995 (3) ALD 461 (D. B ). In paragraph (6) of the said judgment, the division Bench observed as under: "6. We have decided however to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge for the obvious reason that no person who otherwise is not qualified or who has disqualified himself for a licence should be allowed to take advantage of any interim order of the court. A person who has been subjected to a disciplinary action for a wrong doing, should not be allowed to function under an interim order of the court. In all such case it is not the interest of the party alone but the public interest which is
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
