Th Rajamma v. the State of Ap
Case brief
What is this about?
The petitioner challenged the suspension of her Fair Price Shop authorisation alleging illegality and lack of enquiry. The High Court directed the authorities to consider the petitioner's reply and conduct a regular enquiry before passing a final order. The interim order dated 08.01.2020 remains in force during this process.
What did the court decide?
Petitioner directed to submit explanation within two weeks; respondent to conduct regular enquiry and pass final order expeditiously; interim order held good till final order.
What the court decided
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO
Writ Petition No.623 of 2020
ORDER :
The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings in Rc.CS2(6)/239552/2019 dated 03.01.2020 passed by 2nd respondent suspending the authorization of petitioner’s Fair Price Shop No.0815001 situated in Talluru Village & Mandal, Prakasam District without conducting any enquiry and calling for explanation of the petitioner as illegal and for a consequential direction.
2. As can be seen from the impugned proceedings, the inspecting authorities having found the alleged variations in the stock of Salt and Atta submitted report to 2nd respondent. Basing on which the impugned order was passed suspending the petitioner’s dealership for Fair Price Shop No.0815001. This Court on 08.01.2020 granted interim suspension of the said order while directing the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies to get instructions.
3. Heard Sri I.Koti Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies representing the respondents.
4. Since the petitioner is challenging the alleged variations mentioned in the impugned order on the ground firstly that the Salt is not a scheduled item and so far as Atta is concerned, there was no variation as alleged, this Court without expressing any opinion on the
2
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner was entitled to relief without submitting her explanation regarding alleged variations in stock.
Whether a fair enquiry was conducted before suspending the petitioner authorisation to run a Fair Price Shop.
Whether a show cause notice should have been issued and a regular enquiry conducted before finalising the impugned order.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Petitioner
- respondent
1st Respondent
- respondent
2nd Respondent
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Andhra Pradesh HC
- Decided on
- · January
- Registered
- Case no.
- WP/623/2020
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court