Y.Sudhakar Reddy v. The Joint Collector, Guntur, Guntur Dist

Petitioner is the dealer of a fair price shop of Bollavaram village of Muppalla mandal, Guntur district. The Deputy Tahasildar (Civil Supplies) inspected his shop on 14.10.2004 and noticed certain irregularities. On the basis of the same, he initiated proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) before the first respondent on the one hand and on the other forwarded a report of the same to the second respondent. The second respondent, turn, the report into account and suspended authorization of the petitioner through his order dated 16.10.2004. On the same day, he issued a show cause notice to the petitioner directing him to explain as to why suitable action should not be taken on account of the irregularities noticed by the Deputy Tahasildar. The petitioner preferred an appeal, together with an application for stay before the Joint Collector, Guntur, the first respondent, aggrieved by the order of suspension.

The first respondent rejected the application for stay through his order dated 24.11.2004. Hence, this writ petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. The second respondent suspended the authorization of the petitioner, pending enquiry. He has also issued a show cause notice to the petitioner. As of now, no procedural error can be said to have crept into the proceedings initiated by the second respondent. On behalf of the petitioner, it is contended that the action of the second respondent in placing the petitioner under suspension, solely on the basis of initiation of proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act, cannot be sustained. Reliance is placed on a Judgment of this Court in Md. Saleem v. The Revenue Divl. Officer, Bodhan. This Court held that suspension of an authorization of a dealer exclusively on the ground that proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act were initiated could not be sustained.

It was also observed that appointing authority has to independently assess the matter. A perusal of the order of suspension passed against the petitioner discloses that apart from referring to the factum of initiation of proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act, the second respondent had referred to the nature of irregularities said to have been committed by the petitioner as well as the gravity thereof. Therefore, the ratio laid down by this Court in the Judgment referred to above does not apply to the facts of the present case. Hence, no exception can be taken to the rejection of the application for stay by the first respondent. Inasmuch as the first respondent happens to be the authority, before whom the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act are initiated as well as the appellate authority against the order of suspension, he can be permitted to dispose of both the proceedings together, with reasonable amount of expedition.

The Joint Collector, Guntur, Guntur Dist. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur, Guntur District. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Muppala Mandal, Guntur District. Two C.Cs. to the Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad, (OUT).

Two C.D. Copies.