IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION Nos. 13700, 13701, 13781,13782, 13783,13819,13820,13825,13826,13827,13828,13829,13830, 13831, 13832, 13833, 13834, 13835, 13836, 13837, 13838, 13839, 13840 and 13878 OF 2010 Between: K.Ganga Ram and others ..... PETITIONERS AND The Joint Collector (CS), Nizamabad and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION Nos. 13700, 13701, 13781,13782, 13783,13819,13820,13825,13826,13827,13828,13829,13830, 13831, 13832, 13833, 13834, 13835, 13836, 13837, 13838, 13839, 13840 and 13878 OF 2010 COMMON O R D E R : The petitioners herein were appointed as the authorized dealers of the Fair Price Shops in Nizamabad District. Their authorizations were cancelled by separate orders on the ground that they had indulged in diversion of rice meant for distribution to new card-holders to black market. Challenging the same, the petitioners preferred statutory appeals before the Joint Collector, Nizamabad. While entertaining the appeals, the Joint Collector, Nizamabad dismissed the applications filed by the petitioners for stay of operation of the orders of cancellation. Aggrieved by the same, this batch of writ petitions are filed. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents and perused the material available on record. It is not in dispute that all the petitioners herein were issued show cause notices calling upon them to explain the irregularities specified thereunder including the diversion of PDS rice to black market. The petitioners submitted their explanations and having considered the same, separate orders were passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, cancelling the authorisation of the petitioners. That apart, penalty was also imposed three times the difference between the market rate and PDS rate of the rice diverted to the black market. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the orders of cancellation which were passed without causing enquiry as required under clause 5(5) of AP PDS(Control) Order, 2008 and without assigning any valid reasons were arbitrary and illegal. It is also contended that the alleged diversion of PDS rice to black market was absolutely false and without any basis and cancellation of authorisations without affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioners to establish their bonafides was unwarranted and unjustified. As the statutory appeals are pending before the Joint Collector and the validity of the orders of cancellation is the subject matter of the said appeals, I am not inclined to express any opinion as to the correctness of the allegations made against the petitioners or the validity or otherwise of the orders of cancellation. As could be seen the only question that arises for consideration in these writ petitions is whether the Joint Collector was justified in dismissing the applications for stay pending the appeals. At the outset it is to be noticed that while dismissing the applications for stay, the main appeals were directed to be posted on 19.06.2010. Having regard to the gravity of the allegations upon which the authorisations were cancelled i.e., diversion of PDS rice to black market, as rightly held by the Joint Collector restoration of authorisations of the petitioners pending the statutory appeals is not in public interest. Hence, the discretion exercised by the Joint Collector in dismissing the applications for suspension in my considered opinion does not suffer from any arbitrariness or unreasonableness. Hence, the interference by this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not warranted. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the Joint Collector, Nizamabad to dispose of the petitioners’ appeals pending on his file following due process of law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Till such time, there shall be a direction to the respondents not to make any permanent appointments in respect of the shops in question. The collection of the penalty imposed shall also be stayed till the appeals are decided. Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of. No costs. ​ ____________ Date: 18.06.2010 G. ROHINI, J Note: Issue CC of order by Monday (B/o) Ivd