- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
SMT.K.PRATHYUSHA v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
MONDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRSENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
WRIT PETITION NO: 41893 OF 2022
Between:
1. SMT.K.PRATHYUSHA W/o Nagaraju Age.26 years, Occ. FP Shop Dealer of Shop No.1144024, Kakarlavaripalli Village Obulavaripalli Mandal, Annamayya dist.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH rep.by its Principal Secretary Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur Dist.
2. The Collector (CS), Annamayya Dist., at Rayachoti.
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer Rajampet Division, Annamayya Dist. (erstwhile YSR Kadapa Dist
4. The Tahsildar, Obulavaripalli Mandal, Annamayya Dist.
5. The Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Railwaykoduru, Annamayya Dist
...RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the Petitioner(s): M M M SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES
The Court made the following: ORDER
1
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND WRIT PETITION NO.41893 of 2022
O R D E R:
This Writ Petition has been filed against the action of the 3rd respondent in not concluding the enquiry within a stipulated period and continuing the petitioner under suspension from 21.03.2022, as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the Orders passed by this Court in Boya Dasthagiramma Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., and violated the principles of natural justice and for consequential relief of revoke the suspension Order dated 21.03.2022, by directing the respondents to release essential commodities in favour of the petitioner.
2) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and perused the record.
3) The learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies on instructions submits that it is fact enquiry was not concluded as on date. Under the circumstances, in our considered view, the relief sought in this Writ Petition by the petitioner is securely
2
covered by the Order of this Court in Boya Dasthagiramma Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., reported in Manu/AP/2169/20221. In the Order relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner the enquiry was not completed for more than 200 days and considered that fact, this Court held that the 3rd respondent therein failed to conclude the enquiry, within a reasonsable period and revoked the authorization of the petitioner.
4) The present case is worest than the case referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the present case, for more than 270 days, enquiry is not concluded against the petitioner and the petitioner was kept under suspension for more than 270 days, which is unreasonable.
5) Accordingly, this Writ Peittion is allowed following the principle laid down in Boya Dasthagiramma Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., directing the 3rdrespondent to revoke the suspension Order dated 21.03.2022, issued against
1 Manu/AP/21 69/2022
3
the petitioner and restore the authorization of the petitioner and continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer.
6) There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending for consideration, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________
JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
Dt.02.01.2023. Note: CC by tomarrow. B/o.MNR
4
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND W.P.No.41893 of 2022
Dt.02.01.2023
MNR
Alert