A NEELIMA Vs. JOINT COLLECTOR KURNOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter arises under the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Control Order"). As common questions of law arise in these Writ Petitions, they have been heard together and common Judgment is being passed at admission stage, after hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. G. Rohini, learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies Department.

(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 of utmost importance. A person who is a Dealer of a fair price shop in essential commodities, is one whose conduct affects a large body of the consumers. The Court, before the final adjudication, shall refrain and not grant any interim order in his/her favour. When we make the above order, however, we are clear in our mind that the authority concerned should not unreasonably delay the disposal of the proceedings and any unreasonably delay in disposal of the enquiry by the Revenue Divisional Officer, may give rise to the suspicion that the petitioner-respondent has been wronged by somo motivated order against her. It is necessary for the said reason to reiterate before we conclude that the Revenue Divisional Officer must abide by the time schedule and pass final orders strictly in accordance with law within the time indicated above." (emphasis supplied)