The Single Judge disposed of the writ petition at the admission stage, directing the petitioner to submit an explanation to the 2nd respondent to enable consideration of the suspension order.
Directed petitioner to submit explanation to 2nd respondent within two weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO WRIT PETITION No.950 of 2020
ORDER:
The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of 2nd respondent in suspending the authorization of the petitioner in Ref.No.I(4)/1483/2013 dated 19.12.2019, as illegal and contrary to the provisions of A.P. State Targetted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 (for short “ Control Order, 2018 ”) and for consequential direction to restore the dealership of the petitioner in respect of F.P. Shop No.1116023 of Devagudi Vilage, Jammalamadugu Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.
2
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J
22nd January, 2020
Note : Furnish copy today. B/O pvd
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order suspending the petitioner's authorization is illegal and contrary to the Control Order, 2018.
Prayers for declaration of illegality and restoration of dealership.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The Petitioner
Deputy Food Commissioner
U. DURGA PRASAD RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
