Disposed

A.Brahmananda Reddy, v. The District Collector

Telangana HC2 Dec 2004WP/21033/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a writ petition challenging the 1st respondent's refusal to register a revision petition. The court held that since the 1st respondent deemed the allegations not grave enough to warrant suspension pending inquiry, the revision was futile. The petition was disposed of by staying the suspension. The contracting authority must conclude proceedings within two months, and the petit

What did the court decide?

Petitioner is entitled to continue as fair price shop dealer until disposal by the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent to conclude proceedings within two months.

A.Brahmananda Reddy, Vs The District… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2004)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO : 21033 of 2004

¶7

Between:

¶8

A.Brahmananda Reddy, S/o.Seera Reddy, Rampuram Village, Peddavaduguru Mandal, Ananthapur District.

¶9

..... PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The District Collector, Ananthapur Dist., Ananthapur.

¶12

2 The Joint Collector, Ananthapur, Ananthapur Dist.

¶13

3 The Revenue Divisional officer, Ananthapur, Ananthapur District.

¶14

4 The Mandal Revenue officer, Peddavaduguru, Ananthapur District.

¶15

.....RESPONDENT(S)

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring inaction of the 1st respondent in not receiving and registering the revision petition dated 8-11-2004, filed by the petitioner under clause 21(i) of the A.P.State Public Distribution system control order, 2001, whereby the order of the 2nd respondent in D.Dis No.K4/ATP/ 962/2004, dated 6-11-2004 was challenged as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the A.P.State Public Distribution system control order, 2001 and consequently direct the 1st respondent to receive and register the revision petition dated 8-11-2004 filed by the petitioner.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.ROY REDDY

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 4: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

¶19

The Court, at the stage of admission, made the following :

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

Petitioner was appointed as a Fair Price Shop Dealer for Rampuram Village, Peddavaduguru Mandal, Ananthapur District, in the year 1990. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapur, the 3^rd respondent, issued a show cause notice-cumsuspension order, dated 02.08.2004, suspending the authorization of the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, he preferred an appeal before the 2^nd respondent. The appeal was rejected through order, dated 06.11.2004. Petitioner claims to have filed a revision before the 1^st respondent against the same. His complaint is that the office of the 1^st respondent refused to receive or entertain the same and that no orders have been passed thereon either way.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. When the writ petition came up for admission on 17.11.2004, learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies took time to obtain instructions. He has placed before this Court the para-wise remarks received from the 1^st respondent.

¶23

Petitioner felt aggrieved by the order of suspension and preferred an appeal before the 2^nd respondent. When the 2^nd respondent did not pass any interim order therein, he filed W.P.No.14005 of 2004, before this Court. The writ petition was disposed of on 09.08.2004, directing that the petitioner shall be entitled to function as fair price shop dealer till the disposal of the appeal by the 2^nd respondent. Ultimately, the appeal was rejected on 06.11.2004.

¶24

Though the petitioner claims to have presented revision before the 1^st respondent, from a perusal of the para-wise remarks furnished by the 1^st respondent, it is evident that no such revision was presented. This Court would certainly have required the petitioner to peruse further remedy with the 1^st respondent, but for the fact that the

¶25

para-wise remarks, referred to above, virtually render the revision, a futile exercise. While dealing with the contentions raised by the petitioner in the affidavit, the 1^st respondent stated that there is no illegality in the order of suspension and that the truth or otherwise of the allegations against the petitioner can be decided only in the enquiry that may be held by the 3^rd respondent. Once the 1^st respondent has taken such a stand and made up her mind, there is no point in requiring the petitioner to pursue the remedy of revision.

¶26

This Court was already convinced that the allegations against the petitioner are not so grave as to disentitle the petitioner to function as fair price shop dealer and directed that he be permitted to function as such, pending disposal of the appeal. Much time has elapsed, ever since the order of suspension. Instead of prolonging the matter, in relation to suspension itself, the 3^rd respondent can be required to conclude the matter finally. If the petitioner has not filed his explanation, he shall furnish the same, within two weeks from today.

¶27

Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the petitioner shall be entitled to continue as fair price shop dealer, till the disposal of the proceedings by the 3^rd respondent finally, and the 3^rd respondent, in turn, shall conclude the proceedings before him, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as costs.

¶28

L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J

¶29

Dated : 02^nd December, 2004

¶30

¶31

¶32

1 The District Collector, Ananthapur Dist., Ananthapur.

¶33

2 The Joint Collector, Ananthapur, Ananthapur Dist.

¶34

3 The Revenue Divisional officer, Ananthapur, Ananthapur District.

¶35

4 The Mandal Revenue officer, Peddavaduguru, Ananthapur District.

¶36

5 2 CCS to the G.P. for Civil Supplies, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad (OUT).

¶37

6 2CD copies

A.Brahmananda Reddy, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Brahmananda Reddy, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. P. Kamalamma, Vs The Regional Manager

H.P. Obanna S/o late H.P. Bucchi Obanna Vs The Joint Collector, Cuddapah

Maddula Prameela, Vs Sub -Inspector of Police

P. Wamana Rao, Vs The Sub Collector, Asifabad, Adilabad District.

S.Murugan Vs The Station House Officer

Smt. Lavu Jhansi Rani, Vs The Joint Collector