Allowed

Smt Gutta Padmavathi v. Neerukonda Venkata Lakshmi

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Feb 2024WA/84/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ appeal against an order setting aside the suspension of a fair price shop dealer's dealership. The bench found the lower court's reliance on a different precedent inappropriate and the impugned suspension order was not unreasoned or violative of natural justice in this specific context.

What did the court decide?

The judgment and order impugned are set aside; matter remanded to the Single Judge for fresh consideration on merits; status quo maintained.

Smt Gutta Padmavathi Vs Neerukonda Venkata Lakshmi — Consumer Protection | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶3

TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶6

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶7

WRIT APPEAL NO: 84 OF 2024

¶8

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal preferred against the order in W.P.No. 31135 of 2023 on 06.12.2023 on the file of the High Court.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Smt Gutta Padmavathi, W/o. Yamalaiah, Aged 54 Years, Occ: PDF Dealer, R/o. D.N0.2-4A, Govindapuram Village, Chilakaluripeta Mandal, Palnadu District, erstwhile Guntur District.

¶11

...APPELLANT/7‘'’ RESPONDENT in WP No.31135 of 2023 AND

¶12

Neerukonda Venkata Lakshmi, W/o. Vijaya Bhaskar Rao, Durga Priyanka Mahila Podupu Group, Fair Price Shop Dealer for Shop No.0745054, Hindu, Aged 40 Years, Occ Ration Dealer, R/o. Govindapuram Village, Chilakaluripet Mandal, Palanadu District. A.P.

¶13

...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER in WP No.31135 of 2023

¶14

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi,^A.P.

¶15

The District Collector, (Civil Supplies), Narasaraopeta,^{PalanaduDistrict.} 4. The Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Narasaraopeta Division, Palanadu District.

¶16

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet Division Narasaraopet. 6. The Tahasildar, Chilakaluripet Mandal Palanadu District.

¶17

Deputy Tahasildar, Chilakaluripet Mandal Palanadu District.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS/

¶19

RESPONDENTS No.1 to 6 in WP No.31135 of 2023

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstatedin} the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the impugned order passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P No. 31135 of 2023 dated 06.12.2023 pending disposal of the Writ Appeal.

¶22

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI S.V.S.S.SIVA RAM Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI VENKATA RAMA^RAOKOTA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 : GP FOR CIVIL^SUPPLIES Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 to 7 : GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

¶24

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, GHIEP JUSTICE

¶25

¶26

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶27

WRIT APPEAL No.84 of 8084

¶28

Smt. Gutta Padmavathi, W/o. Yamalaiah, Aged 54 years, Occ: PDF Dealer, R/o.D.No.2-4A, Govindapurain Village, GMlakaluripeta Mandal, Palnadu District, erstwMle Guntur District.

¶29

... Appellant

¶30

Versus

¶31

Neeruiconda Venkata Lakshmi, W/o. Vijaya Bhaskar Rao, Durga Priyanka MaMla Podupu Group, Fair Price Shop Dealer for Shop No.0745054, Hindu, Aged 40 years, Occ: Ration Dealer, R/o. Govindapuram Village, Ghilakaluripet Mandal, Palnadu District, A.P. and six others.

¶32

...Respondents

¶33

Mr. S. V. S. S. Sivaram, Counsel for the appellant.

¶34

Mr. Venkata Ramarao Kota, Counsel for respondent No.^1.

¶35

Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

¶36

Government Pleader for Revenue, Counsel for respondent^Nos5 to 7.

¶37

DATE : 06.02.2024

¶38

P.G.:

¶39

The present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against

¶40

the judgment and order dated 06.12.2023 passed in W.P.No.31135

¶41

of 2023.

¶42

HCJ a RRR, J W.A.No.84of2024

¶43

¶44

¶45

Briefly stated, the material facts are as imder:

¶46

The petitioner before the learned single Judge, respondent No.l herein, was a fair price shop dealer whose dealership^was suspended by virtue of the impugned order dated 16.11.2023 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet^Division.

¶47

The petitioner’s case was that the order impugned was unsustainable as it was contrary to the principles of natural justice and violative of the constitutional guarantees as enshrined^under Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. The learned single Judge by virtue of judgment and order impugned,^setaside the order impugned dated 16.11.2023, by placing rehance upon a judgment rendered in W.P.No.5800 of 2020, dated 06.04.2021, treating the facts of the case in W.P.No.31135 of 2023,^assimilarto the one’s which were before the Court iu W.P.No.5800 of 2020.

¶48

We have gone through the judgment and order dated 06.04.2021 rendered in W.P.No.5800 of 2020. It can be seen that the learned single Judge m the said judgment and order^hadset aside the order impugned primarily on the ground that^itwasan unreasoned order and secondly that no opportunity of being heard had been granted to the petitioner in that case.

¶49

‘ »

¶50

HCJ a RRR, J W.A.No.84 of 2024

¶51

¶52

In the present case, learned counsel for appellant/respondent No. 7 in the writ petition, representing the fair price shop dealer, who had been appointed temporarily on account of the order of cancellation of the dealership of respondent No.l herein,^would submit that the judgment and order impugned in the present appeal was not at all similar to the one rehed upon by the learned single Judge, inasmuch as this was not a case where either the principles of natural justice had been violated or the order was an unreasoned order.

¶53

We have gone through the order impugned which was passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet and find that the same cannot be said to be an unreasoned order. In our opinion, the issue as to whether the principles of natural justice^hadbeen violated or not also is an issue which needs to be gone into in greater detail by the learned single Judge. In any^{caseweareofthe} opinion that the judgment relied upon by the learned single Judge passed in W.P.No.5800 of 2020 was quite inapt in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

¶54

For the reasons mentioned above, we set aside the judgment and order impugned and remand the matter to the learned single Judge for consideration afresh on merits. Till such time as the

¶55

HCJ a RRR, J W.A.No.84of 2024

¶56

¶57

learned single Judge passes an order afresh, status quo be

¶58

maintained.

¶59

The writ appeal is, accordingly, allowed. No order as to costs.

¶60

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand^closed.

¶61

//TRUE COPY//

¶62

Sd/- P. VENKATA RAMAN A JOINT REGISTRAR

SECTION OFFICER

To.

The Principal Secretary Civil Supplies Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, A.P.

¶67

The District Collector, (Civil Supplies), Narasaraopeta,^{PalanaduDistrict.}

¶68

The Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Narasaraopeta Division, Palanadu District.

¶69

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet Division Narasaraopet.

¶70

The Tahasildar, Chitakaluripet Mandal Palanadu District.

¶71

Deputy Tahasildar, Chilakaluripet Mandal Palanadu^District.

¶72

One CC to Sri S.V.S.S.Siva Ram, Advocate [OPUC]

¶73

One CC to Sri Venkata Rama Rao Kota, Advocate [OPUC]

¶74

Two CCs to GP for Civil Supplies, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. (OUT) 10.Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. (OUT) 11.Three C.D. Copies.

¶75

12.The Section officer. Writ (Non-Service) Section, High Court of AP. Cnr

HIGH COURT

DATED:06/02/2024

ORDER

WA.No.84 of 2024

ilO 0 1 APR 202'!
^ COM
Current Section

¶81

ALLOWING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS

Smt Gutta Padmavathi v. Neerukonda Venkata Lakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Gutta Padmavathi v. Neerukonda Venkata Lakshmi

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

Dredging Corporation of India, Vs M/s. Ims Ship Management Pvt. Ltd.

Gollapalli Chalapathi Sarma Vs the State of Ap

Yellapu Venkat Ramana Murthy, Vs High Court of Andhra Pradesh

The State of Ap Vs Myla Srinivasa Rao

Nelapudi Veeranna Vs Korukonda Subba Rao

J.v.Narasimha Raju Vs M/S.Sagi Rama Krishnam Raju Engineering College