K. Ayyappan and 5 others vs The District Revenue Officer, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil and The Assistant Collector, Padmanabhapuram, Thuckalay Post, Kanyakumari District

Kanakaraj, J.—In all these cases, the petitioners are retail licensees under the Tamil Nadu Essential (Trade Articles) Regulation Order 1984. By proceedings dated 24-2-1992, the Assistant Collector had suspended the licence for a period of 90 days pending enquiry, exercising power under Cl. 19(2) of the said Order. According to the order of suspension, irregularities were found at the time of inspection. There is some indication as to the nature of the irregularities because a charge memo has been served on 24-2-1992. It is seen from the charge memo that on 19-2-1992 at 3:15 p.m. when the shop was inspected it was found closed. Secondly it is stated that the villagers had complained that the petitioner was not selling the essential articles but was transporting the same to Kerala. Against the order of interim suspension, the petitioners filed appeals to the District Revenue Officer and sought for stay of the order of interim suspension. The appeals are maintainable under Cl. 28 of the said Order. On 6-3-1992 when the appeals were presented, the petitioners have pressed for stay of the interim suspension and it is stated that the District Revenue Officer refused to pass stay orders. It is in these circumstances, these writ petitions have been filed to quash the orders of interim suspension dated 24-2-1992. I have heard the Government Pleader on the question as to why the appellate authority refused to exercise his power under Cl. 28 (4) of the said Order. When there is a specific power to stay an order of the original authority, that power has to be exercised one way or the other and properly. In matters like this, if stay is not granted the appeal itself will become in fructuous. This is because the order of suspension is only for a period of 90 days and therefore, the appellate authority should in the normal circumstances grant stay of the order of suspension and then dispose of the appeal as early as possible. Inasmuch as the appellate authority has failed to exercise his power under Cl. 28 (4) of the Order, I am obliged to pass the following order. Pending disposal of the appeal before the appellate authority, there will be an order of stay of the interim suspension dated 24-2-1992. It is open to the appellate authority to pass early orders on the main appeals. The writ petitions are ordered in the above terms. No costs.