THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.17803 of 2011 Date: 28.06.2011 Between: B. Vani … Petitioner and The District Collector (Civil Supplies), Chittoor, Chittoor District and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.17803 of 2011 ORDER : Heard Sri S.V. Muni Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. 2. This writ petition is wholly misconceived. The petitioner, having challenged the order impugned in this writ petition in an earlier W.P.No.6647 of 2011 and having invited an order dated 16.3.2011, has again challenged the same order in this writ petition. 3. The petitioner is a Fair Price Shop dealer in respect of shop No.103 of Kurchivedu village, Chittoor Mandal, Chittoor District. The petitioner’s shop was inspected by the Additional Revenue Inspector and noticed the following irregularities: 1. That the F.P. shop dealer is not residing in the jurisdiction of F.P. shop and residing at Chittoor and causing much inconvenience. 2. That the F.P. Shop dealer is issuing commodities to the cardholders only for 2 or 3 days and not opening the F.P. Shop during the other days. 3. That the F.P. shop dealer is issuing kerosene oil to the cardholders only 1 litre instead of 2 litres and recording in the sales register 2 litres as if she is issuing and misusing the stock in clandestine disposal. 4. That the F.P. shop dealer is selling ECs at higher prices than that of fixed. 5. That the F.P. shop dealer is distributing ECs at lesser weighments. 6. The dealer is insisting the cardholders to produce Xerox copy of the ration card on every occasion when the cardholder approaches the dealer for ECs if the cardholder not produced the Xerox copy, the dealer has not distributing the ECs to the cardholders and causing much inconvenience to them. 7. That the dealer is quarrelling with the cardholders as a habit. 4. Pursuant to the report dated 10.8.2010 submitted by the 3rd respondent-Tahsildar, Chittoor Mandal, the 2nd respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor, by proceedings Roc.No.B/3021/2010, dated 27.8.2010 suspended the authorization of the petitioner pending enquiry. Against the said order, the appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Joint Collector, Chittoor, was disposed of by order dated 21.9.2010, directing the 3rd respondent to complete the enquiry expeditiously within a period of two weeks. At that stage, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.6647 of 2011 challenging the order dated 27.8.2010 passed by the 2nd respondent. Based on the grievance presented by the petitioner in the said writ petition to the effect that despite the orders of the Joint Collector dated 21.9.2010 directing the 2nd respondent to complete the enquiry and pass final orders, the said authority did not comply with the said directions, this Court by order dated 16.3.2011 disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the 2nd respondent to complete the enquiry and pass final order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. 5. The petitioner has again filed this writ petition challenging the very same order, which was the subject matter in the aforesaid writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that despite the directions of this Court dated 16.3.2011 to complete the enquiry within a time frame, the 2nd respondent failed to do so. The learned counsel also contends that the impugned order has been passed without conducting any enquiry and the petitioner has been kept under prolonged suspension. He further submits that the authorization has been suspended primarily on the ground that the petitioner is not residing within the jurisdiction where the Fair Price Shop is located and residing at Chittoor, which is ex-facie incorrect. The learned counsel relies on a residence certificate issued by the Tahsildar to show that the petitioner is a resident of V.N. Puram, which is situated within the jurisdiction of the Fair Price Shop. Therefore, he submits that the impugned order is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. 7. I have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the material available on record. 8. As mentioned above, the order impugned in this writ petition is the same order that was impugned in the earlier W.P.No.6647 of 2011. The alleged grounds viz., prolonged suspension of the petitioner’s authorisation and the erroneous approach of the 2nd respondent in passing the impugned order were very much available to the petitioner in the earlier W.P.No.6647 of 2011. However, the petitioner did not canvass these grounds in the said writ petition, rather invited an order presenting the sole grievance that the 2nd respondent was not complying with the orders of the Joint Collector whereunder he was directed to dispose of the enquiry within a time frame. The petitioner, having failed to urge these grounds in the earlier writ petition, is estopped from raising the said grounds in a subsequent writ petition filed for the same cause of action. He, therefore, cannot be allowed to be heard on the principle of constructive resjudicata. 9. Further, the learned counsel is not right in contending that the authorization has been suspended mainly based on the residential status of the petitioner. The grounds enumerated above would show that the petitioner has indulged in committing serious irregularities. From a perusal of the said irregularities, it is evident that the 2nd respondent has rightly suspended the authorization of the petitioner. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to rely on a judgment rendered by this Court in U.K. NARASIMHULU v. JOINT COLLECTOR, KURNOOL DISTRICT[1] in support of his contention that the authorization has been suspended without any show cause notice. 11. I am of the view that the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In fact, in para-4 of the said judgment, it was clearly stated that it is mandatory to issue a show cause notice only in cases where substantive punishments are awarded by suspension or cancellation of the authorization, and in the case of suspension pending enquiry, notice need not precede enquiry. In the instant case, indisputably, the authorization of the petitioner has been suspended pending the enquiry, therefore, no show cause notice is required. 12. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition should fail and is accordingly dismissed with costs, at the stage of admission. ________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI 28.06.2011. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.17803 of 2011 28.06.2011 (Msr) [1] 2005 (2) ALT 429