N VIJAYA Vs. K SATYAVATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We would have preferred to make only a summary order in Writ Appeal No. 172 of 1996 and reiterate the principle that in cases of suspension of the authorisation of the Fair Price Shop dealership, pending enquiry into the allegations of such conduct, which disentitle any person, if proved, to have authorisation for such dealership, suspension is not ordered by the Court as a matter of course, as in the event of enquiry going against the petitioner, his continuance only under the order of the Court will have no justification at all. We are, however, required to state, in some details, the principles which the Court should apply in deciding whether to suspend the order of suspension, pending enquiry, of authorisation to run a Fair Price Shop because in the impugned order in Writ Appeal No. 181 of 1996 a learned single Judge has chosen to state that a Bench decision of this Court in B. Maheswaramma vs. M. Ramasubbamma does not have the ratio decidendi to the above effect.

(2.) It is not in dispute in the instant cases that the writ petitioner - respondents were given licences to operate Fair Price Shops as dealers in the essential commodities under the Andhra Pradesh Sheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Distribution by Card System) Order, 1982, the Order being issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. The competent, authrotiy decided, pending enquiry, to suspend the licences granted to them. They have preferred appeals. The appellate authority, however, pending appeal, has not suspended the order of the competent authority under which the dealership licences of the writ petitioner - respondents have been suspended. They have invoked this Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned Single Judge has in separate orders, suspended the order of suspension of the licences under the above said Control Order, pending the enquiry and any order in the appeals by the writ petitioner -respondents before the competent appellate authority.

(3.) In B. Maheswaramma vs.M.Ramasubbamma (1 supra) the Court has, while deciding that a third person, including a person who is granted the licence during the period of suspension of the licence of the original dealer, will have locus standi to appeal against any such order or direction as issued by the learned single Judge under the impugned orders, pointed out as follows: