Disposed

Duddu Pothu Raju, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rcp: by its Principal

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Nov 2021WP/1341/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner questioned refusal to supply essential commodities despite ongoing '6A' proceedings. Court directed respondents to supply goods if authorization remains active and expedited the enquiry within two months before dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to supply essential commodities; directed completion of enquiry within two months.

Duddu Pothu Raju, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rcp: by its Principal — Andhra Pradesh HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

¶2

Writ Petition No.1341 of 2016

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The writ petition is filed questioning the inaction of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in releasing and supplying the essential commodities in favour of the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary.

¶5

The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as permanent fair price shop dealer of F.P.Shop No.21, Chimmiribanda Village, Martur Mandal, Prakasam District; the said shop was surprised by the Food Inspector on 08.01.2016, alleging minor variations of stock and seized the stock available on the ground and 6A proceedings under Essential Commodities Act were initiated against him; his authorization was neither suspended nor cancelled, but the respondents are refusing to supply essential commodities to him. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶6

When the matter came up for admission, an interim order was passed on 19.01.2016 directing the respondents to release and supply the essential commodities to the petitioner, if his authorization is neither suspended nor cancelled as of date.

¶7

Counter affidavit along with vacate stay petition was filed stating inter alia that the show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 20.01.2016, but no explanation has been submitted by him to the said show cause notice; they found variation of 120.70kgs of PDS Rice, 2 kgs of Sugar, 143 Ltrs

¶8

¶9

of Kerosene oil, 111 kgs of ICDS R.Dal and 70 Ltrs of ICDS P.Oil and about 199 cardholders have given complaint against the petitioner during Janmabhoomi-Maa Vuru Programme on 08.01.2016.

¶10

As seen from the counter affidavit, there is no order passed either suspending or cancelling the petitioner’s authorization. But the allegations against the petitioner are serious. As there is an interim direction pending writ petition the respondents are directed to supply essential commodities to him, if the authorization is existing as on today and if it is neither suspended nor cancelled. The respondents are directed to complete the enquiry, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if the same is pending.

¶11

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶12

The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶13

_________________________________ KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J

¶14

Date : 03.11.2021 VSL

¶15

¶16

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

¶17

WRIT PETITION No.1341 OF 2016

¶18

Date: 03.11.2021

¶19

VSL

¶20

Duddu Pothu Raju, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rcp: by its Principal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Duddu Pothu Raju, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rcp: by its Principal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Fair Price Shops Dealers Welfare Association, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Padala Appalakonda Vs State of Ap,Prl.Scy,C.S.,Hyd,and 3

Mogili Yedukondalu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Revuru Krishnaiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Soudagar Afrin Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s.Nagaraja Traders Vs State of Andhra Pradesh