Allowed

Kornu Govinda, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC27 Feb 2020WP/2783/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed a writ petition challenging the termination of Fair Price Shop authorization. Relying on a prior common order, the Court quashed the termination for violating natural justice and remitted the matter for a fresh enquiry.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; matter remitted to 3rd Respondent to issue show-cause notice, conduct enquiry, and pass appropriate order.

Kornu Govinda, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO WRIT PETITION No.2783 of 2020

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

The petitioner seeks writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3^rd respondent in issuing proceedings in SR.No.41/2019/S5, dated 28.12.2019, terminating the petitioner’s authorization of fair price shop No.0119076 of Singuvalasa Village, Srikakulam Mandal, Srikakulam District, without conducting any enquiry as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and for a consequential direction to set aside the termination proceedings.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Srinivas Ambati and learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies representing on behalf of respondents.

¶5

At the time of hearing, it is the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that the issue in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the order of this Court in W.P.No.1758 of 2020, dated 31.01.2020, where under, the termination proceedings issued by the 2^nd respondent without issuing any show-cause notice and without conducting enquiry was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the 2^nd respondent for fresh consideration.

¶6

Following the said order and for the reasons recorded therein, this writ petition is also allowed and the impugned order in SR.No.41/2019/S5, dated 28.12.2019, passed by the 3^rd respondent is set aside and the matter is remitted back with a direction to the

¶7

¶8

3^rd respondent to issue a fresh show-cause notice to the petitioner calling for her explanation and after receiving her explanation, conduct an enquiry and pass an appropriate order in accordance with the governing law and rules expeditiously. Till such exercise is completed, the petitioner shall be permitted to conduct the fair price shop No.0119076 of Singuvalasa Village, Srikakulam Mandal, Srikakulam District.

¶9

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending for

¶10

consideration, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.

¶11

_________________________ U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J

¶12

27.02.2020

¶13

Note: office to enclose a copy of common order in W.P.No.1758 of 2020 and batch, dated 31.01.2020.

¶14

B/o.SS

Kornu Govinda, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kornu Govinda, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kallam Peri Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kondeti Bangarayya, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B. Chengaiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Gangula Lakshmi Devi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Koti Lingeswara Group Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Bogireddy Adeswarareddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh