Allowed

D. Eliya v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC23 Nov 2023WP/29803/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the suspension of their authorization as a fair price shop in Andhra Pradesh as illegal and arbitrary. The court, relying on observations from a similar previous writ petition stating that an incomplete enquiry over 300 days violates the reasonable period requirement, held the suspension illegal. The writ was allowed, directing the suspension to be

What did the court decide?

Revocation of suspension order dated 23.11.2022 and restoration of the petitioner's authorization as a fair price shop dealer.

D. Eliya Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶2

WRIT PETITION.NO.29803 OF 2023

¶3

ORDER:-

¶4

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the

¶5

Constitution of the India seeking the following reliefs:-

¶6

“to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.3 in issuing the proceedings vide Rc.No.3336/2022-G dated 23.11.2022, wherein suspended the authorization of fair price shop No.0785011, Ambedkar Colony, East Malapalli, Chilakaluripet Town of the petitioner without giving any opportunity as being illegal, arbitrary unjust in violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of A.P. State Targeted Public Distribution System Control Order, 2018 and consequently set aside the same by directing the respondents to allot commodities to the shop No.0785011, Ambedkar Colony, East Malapalli, Chilakaluripet Town and permit the petitioner to distribute commodities to the card holders, and pass such other orders ...”

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶8

Learned counsel for petitioner straight away takes this Court through the order, dated 13.09.2022, passed by this Court in W.P.No.29374 of 2022 as the facts and circumstances of this case are similar to this case.

¶9

Learned Government Pleader does not refute the

¶10

submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶11

Relevant paragraph of the order passed in W.P.No.29374

¶12

of 2022 is extracted hereunder:

¶13

“In the light of the observations of the Division Bench, as extracted supra, in the considered opinion of this Court, as the enquiry is not completed by the respondents in the present case for more than 300 days, it has to be construed that the enquiry is not completed within the “reasonable period” and accordingly, this Court is holding that the 2^nd respondent failed to conclude the enquiry within “reasonable period” and the suspension order passed against the petitioner on 09.10.2021 shall be revoked and the authorization of the petitioner shall be restored.

¶14

For the reasons stated above, this Writ Petition is allowed directing the 2^nd respondent to revoke the suspension order dated 09.10.2021 issued against the petitioner and restore the authorization of the petitioner and continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer.”

¶15

In view of the same, for the reasons alike in the aforesaid

¶16

order, this Writ Petition is also allowed directing the 3^rd respondent to revoke the suspension order dated 23.11.2022 issued against the petitioner and restore the authorization of the petitioner and continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer. It is needless to observe that the respondents are at liberty to

¶17

complete the enquiry at the earliest. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶18

Registry is directed to attach a copy of the order dated 13.09.2022 passed by this Court in W.P.No.29374 of 2022 to this order.

¶19

As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶20

_______________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J

¶21

23.11.2023 TPS

¶22

¶23

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶24

WRIT PETITION.NO.29803 OF 2023

¶25

DATED:23.11.2023

¶26

TPS

D. Eliya v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D. Eliya 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Water Users Association Vs Sasi Bhushan Kumar, I.A.S

The Distributory Committee/Watr Users Association Vs Sasi Bhushan Kumar,I.a.S

Tummalapalli Srinivasarao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

V Bhagyalakshmi Vs M T Krishna Babu,I.a.S

Jonnala Vijay Bhaskar Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Godavari Msw Management Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Ap