Disposed

Devarakonda Pragathi, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC9 May 2023WP/825/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge order in Writ Petition challenging discontinuation of commodity supply. Court directed respondents to supply till authorization is subsisting, citing another judgment, pending disciplinary proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to supply essential commodities to the petitioner till authorization is subsisting; liberty to conclude proceedings if initiated.

Devarakonda Pragathi, Vs The… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.825 of 2022

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking to declare the action of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in not supplying essential commodities to the petitioner fair price shop No.0793011 of Tadepalli, Guntur District without there being any suspension or cancellation of authorization is illegal and arbitrary.

¶5

After notice, the 2^nd respondent filed counter. According to the averments made in the counter, based on the report a show cause notice has been issued on 12.01.2022 calling for explanation from the petitioner within 15 days. The petitioner submitted her explanation on 03.01.2022 and in the said explanation the petitioner admitted about the variations. Accordingly it is established that the petitioner indulged in clandestine business by diverting the essential commodities to the back market for

¶6

¶7

her personal gain without distributing the same to the cardholders.

¶8

The contention of the petitioner is that the respondents are not entitled to stop supply of essential commodities to the petitioner without initiating any disciplinary proceedings. As per Clause 8(4) of the Control Order, 2018, The appointing authority may, at any time in the public interest or on suo-motu or on receipt of complaint, after making such enquiry as may be deemed necessary and for reasons to be recorded in writing, suspend or cancel the authorization issued or deemed to be issued. But in the instant case, they have not stated anything about the initiation of proceedings either suspending the authorization or cancelling the license of the petitioner.

¶9

In view of the averments made in the counter and also the observations made by this Court in Oleti Tirupathamma vs District Supply Officer (City),

¶10

Vishakapatnam, the respondents are directed to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner till the

¶11

¶12

authorization of the petitioner is subsisting. If any proceedings are initiated, the respondents are at liberty to conclude the proceedings within a reasonable period and take appropriate action as per results of the final proceedings.

¶13

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶14

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶15

_____________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶16

Date : 09.05.2023 TPS

¶17

¶18

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶19

WRIT PETITION No.825 of 2022

¶20

Date:09.05.2023

¶21

TPS

Devarakonda Pragathi, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devarakonda Pragathi, 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Devarakonda Pragathi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

C.v.Lokanath Reddy Vs Dr.Rajat Bhargav

R. Chittemma, W/o. R. Channakesavulu Naidu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

G.Venkata Ramanamma Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

M/S. Sri Krishnadevaraya Constructions Vs S S Rawat,I.a.S

M.Narendra Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh.