R SREENIVASULU Vs. R D O WANAPARTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned Assistant government Pleader for Civil Supplies had taken notice on behalf of the respondent on 24. 1. 2008 and requested time to get instructions. The matter is coming up for admission.

(2.) SRI V. H. V. R. R. Swamy, the learned counsel representing the writ petitioner, would maintain that when the order of suspension and the first information report are to be compared, there is discrepancy relating to the father's name, and the identity of the party being doubtful, without putting the writ petitioner on notice, an order of suspension had been made and hence, the same is not sustainable. The learned counsel also would submit that there is inordinate delay, the same being beyond the period of 90 days, in the light of the view expressed by this Court in D. Sambasiva rao v. Joint Collector, Guntur and others, 2005 (1) ALD 847 = 2007 (6) ALT 239 and Y. Channappa v. Joint Collector and additional District Magistrate, Anantapur and others, 2007 (6) ALT 257 = 2008 (2)ALD (NOC) 34, the order of suspension to be set aside and the writ petition to be allowed.

(3.) ON the contrary, on instructions, the learned Government Pleader for Civil supplies would submit that the person, who was shown in the First Information Report and also the person-dealer, against whom, the order of suspension had been made, are one and the same, since the shop being one and the same. The learned Government pleader also would submit that the suspension made may be clarified as suspension pending enquiry and an opportunity may be given to the petitioner to submit his explanation in this regard and the same can be directed to be disposed of at an early date. The learned Government pleader also would submit that the view expressed by the learned Judge relating to the maximum period of suspension to be only 90 days in D. Sambasiva Rao v. Joint Collector, Guntur and others (supra), may not be correct in the light of the view expressed by a Division Bench of this Court in a judgment reported in R. Sankar Naik v. R. Chowla Naik and others, 2005 (2) ALD 616 = 2005 (2) ALT 454.