S.RAMANJANEYLU Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been appointed as Fair Price Shop Dealer for Shop No. 2 of Kothacheruvu Village and Mandal, Ananthapur District. While so, based on the report submitted by the third respondent - Tahsildar, the second respondent -Revenue Divisional Officer issued a show cause notice on 3.8.2015 levelling three charges against the petitioner, to which, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 14.8.2015. Dissatisfied with the same, the second respondent by order dated 25.8.2015 suspended the authorization of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 28275 of 2015 and this Court through order dated 10.09.2015 disposed of the said Writ Petition directing the second respondent to complete the enquiry within sixty days from the date of receipt of the said order by duly observing the principles of natural justice. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite the order of this Court, the second respondent did not choose to complete the enquiry. Hence the present Writ Petition.

(2.) 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 , which was subsequently followed by this Court in M.Venkata Ramaiah Vs. Joint Collector (CS), Ananthapur District , 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.

(3.) 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 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 for -indefinite 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 Raos case (1 supra). The judgment reported in M. Venkata Ramaiahs case (2 supra) had relied on in the case of D. Sambasiva Rao (1 supra). In D. Sambasiva Raos 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 Raos case (1 supra), and M. Venkata Ramaiahs case (2 supra) being contrary to the views expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in Joint Collector, Kurnool (3 supra).