IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 20077 of 2008 Between: K. Rajender, S/o. Shankaraiah, R/o. Opp : Dwaraka Lodge, Godown Road, Nizamabad, ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The A.P. State Civil Supplied Corporation Ltd. (Regd. Under Companies Act, 1956), Rep by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Civil Supplies Bhavan, No. 6-3-655/1/A, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 3 The Joint Collector & E.O.ED., Andhra Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Rangareddy District, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in passing the impugned Proceedings No. PDS/Movt/FG5(1)/08-09 State-I Rice dt. 6-9-2008 on the ﬁle of Respondent No. 3 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and without jurisdiction and consequently set aside the impugned order, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.RAJ KUMAR RUDRA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 20077 of 2008 ORDER: Petitioner herein is the Stage I contractor for transport of the food grains of the second respondent corporation for the year 2008-09. This Writ Petition is ﬁled seeking declaration that the proceedings of the third respondent dated 06.09.2008, suspending the contract in favour of the petitioner, with immediate eﬀect, as per the terms and conditions of the agreement is arbitrary and illegal. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the vehicle belonging to the petitioner was red handedly caught and seized by the Vigilance and Enforcement authorities while unloading the P.D.S. rice stocks taken delivery from F.C.I. Depot Cherlapally, on the intervening night of 30/31.08.2008. Thereafter proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act have been initiated apart from registering a criminal case. That apart, since a prima face case has been made out to show that the petitioner has violated Clauses 3(iii), 8(iii) and 8(iv) of the agreement and as the rice stocks meant for distribution to the poor under P.D.S. were diverted to rice mill, the impugned order of suspension of contract has been passed. It is primarily contended by the petitioner that the impugned order which was passed without prior notice to the petitioner and without conducting any enquiry is arbitrary and illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice. It is also contended that the allegations made against the petitioner are false and without any basis and therefore, the impugned action is unwarranted. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. As could be seen from the terms and conditions of the agreement, it is clear that the Corporation is empowered to suspend the contract during the currency of the agreement if the contractor or his representative is involved in a case of diversion of stock. It is submitted by the learned standing counsel for the Corporation across the bar that an enquiry would be conducted against the petitioner with regard to the contraventions alleged and appropriate orders would be passed after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to make his representation. In the circumstances the impugned order of suspension as an interim measure pending enquiry cannot be held to be either arbitrary or illegal and the interference by this Court at this stage is unwarranted. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of leaving it open to the respondents to proceed with the enquiry and pass appropriate orders following due process of law as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, there shall be a direction to the respondents not to award the work in question to any third party. No order as to costs. -------------------- G.ROHINI, J. 19.09.2008 Kvsn ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD}