Disposed

Gundebommu Venkata Ramana, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Nov 2021WP/8562/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition questioning the non-supply of essential commodities. It directed the respondents to continue supplying to the petitioner's Fair Price Shop, noting the petitioner's authorisation was neither suspended nor cancelled.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to continue supplying essential commodities to the petitioner's Fair Price Shop.

Gundebommu Venkata Ramana, Vs The State of… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

¶2

Writ Petition No.8562 of 2015

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in not supplying the essential commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop. When the matter came up for admission on 30.03.2015, this Court granted interim direction to the respondents directing them to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop during the subsistence of the authorisation.

¶5

Today when the matter came up for hearing, Sri Raju, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, passed on the written instructions of Sri P. Sailendra Kumar, the Tahsildar, Tarlupadu Mandal, Prakasam District dated 06.11.2021 addressed to the Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. The relevant portion of the written instructions reads as follows:

¶6

“It is submitted that at present Smt. Gundebommu Venkata Ramana D/o Narayana was continuing as FP shop dealer, FP Shop No.5 of Surepalli village, Tarlupadu Mandal and distributed the essential commodities to the card holders properly.

¶7

I request that the above may be taken to the notice of the Hon’ble High Court and safeguard the interest of the Government in this case.”

¶8

As seen from the said instructions, petitioner is being continued as fair price shop dealer. The said instructions do not deal with the aspect as to whether the authorisation of the petitioner is suspended or not.

¶9

In view of the facts and circumstances, if the authorisation of the petitioner is valid as on today and the same is neither suspended nor cancelled, the respondents are directed to continue to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop.

¶10

The Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.

¶11

__________________________ KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J

¶12

Date: 08.11.2021 BSS

¶13

HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

¶14

Writ Petition No.8562 of 2015

¶15

¶16

Date: 08.11.2021

¶17

BSS

Gundebommu Venkata Ramana, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gundebommu Venkata Ramana, v. The 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Revuru Krishnaiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Soudagar Afrin Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

G. Manjulamma, Vs The District Collector (Cs)

S.Ramalingadu, S/o.Hanmanthu Vs The STate of Andhra PRadesh

Smt. K.Gangamma, Vs The state of Andhra Pradesh