B CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY Vs. JOINT COLLECTOR ANANTAPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in suspending the petitioner's authorisation to run the F.P.Shop for unduly long period, as illegal and arbitrary and for a consequent direction to set aside the order of suspension dated 24-8-1996.

(2.) The petitioner was a Fair Price Shop dealer. The 2nd Respondent issued proceedings dated 24-8-1996 alleging certain irregularities in the distribution of commodities and consequently ordering suspension of the authorisation, pending enquiry into the allegations. Aggrieved by the order of suspension, the petitioner carried the matter in appeal to the 1st Respondent and the 1st Respondent passed an order dated 23-9-1996 dismissing the appeal, however directing the 2nd Respondent to complete the enquiry within sixty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. It was stated that the order was received by the 2nd Respondent in the month of October, 1996 and the petitioner also submitted his explanation. The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of a clear direction by the 1st Respondent to dispose of the case within sixty days, the 2nd Respondent has not passed any order even after expiry of four months. It is therefore, contended that the action of the 2nd Respondent in keeping the petitioner's authorisation under suspension preventing him from carrying on his business for unduly long period without finalising the enquiry was illegal and amounts to abuse of the power conferred on the 2nd Respondent. The inaction of the 2nd Respondent amounts to deprivation of the petitioner's right to carry on his business, which is guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution. Hence, this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is empowered to set right the injustice caused to the petitioner by revoking the order of suspension pending finalisation of the enquiry.

(3.) Authorisation to run F.P.Shop is granted to the petitioner under the provisions of A.P. Scheduled Commodities (Regulation and Distribution by Card System) Order, 1973. Under Clause 3(vi) the Appointing Authority is empowered to suspend the authorisation. This power of suspension is fairly conceded by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The serious objection of the learned Counsel is that such a power of suspension should not be disabused. The authorities should not continue the suspension for an unduly long period. They are bound to complete the enquiry as early as possible. If the authorities do not complete the enquiry and keep the suspension alive for an unconscionably long period, such an order is liable to be set aside. In support of the above proposition, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision in Tappers Co-operative Society, Maddur v. Superintendent of Excise, Mahaboobnagar 1984 (2) APLJ 1. The Full Bench, considering the challenge to a similar provision under the A.P.Excise Act, 1968, held at Paras 45 and 46 as follows :