Disposed

Smt. Lavu Jhansi Rani, v. The Joint Collector

Telangana HC2 Dec 2004WP/22143/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226 challenging the rejection of a stay petition, the Court held that due to the general nature of allegations and lack of serious charges regarding black market activities, the petitioner should be permitted to continue as a Fair Price Shop Dealer pending the disposal of her appeal by the Joint Collector.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner shall be entitled to function as a Fair Price Shop Dealer, pending disposal of the appeal by the 1st respondent.

Smt. Lavu Jhansi Rani, Vs The Joint Collector — Service and Employment | 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 : 22143 of 2004

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt. Lavu Jhansi Rani, W/o. L. Srinivas Rao, Fair Price Shop Dealer Gogulamudi Village, Pedanandipadu Mandal, Guntur District.

¶9

..... PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The Joint Collector, Guntur, Guntur District.

¶12

2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur, Guntur District.

¶13

3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Pedanandipadu Mandal, Guntur District.

¶14

.....RESPONDENT(S)

¶15

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 particualrly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in rejecting the stay petition of the petitioner vide order dated 24-11-2004 and in not disposing of the appeal pending before him in File No.51/2004-S7, which was filed against the order of suspension passed by the 2nd respondent in Rc.3475/2004-G, dated 2-10-2004, is illegal, arbitrary, improper and against the principles of natural justice.

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.SRINIVAS

¶17

Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

The authorization of the petitioner was suspended by the 2^nd respondent through proceedings, dated 02.10.2004. Petitioner filed an appeal before the 1^st respondent together with an application for grant of stay. Through order, dated 24.11.2004, the 1^st respondent rejected the application for stay. Hence, this writ petition.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.

¶22

A perusal of the order, dated 02.10.2004, discloses that the allegations against the petitioner are general in nature. They relate to non-exhibition of name board; failure to maintain complaint book; not distributing the commodities through weighment; failure of the petitioner to open the shop according to the time fixed by the Government etc., There is not even an iota of allegation that the petitioner had bifurcated the essential commodities to black market or that she did not supply the same to the Card Holders.

¶23

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the petitioner deserves to be permitted to continue as Fair Price Shop Dealer, pending disposal of the appeal by the Joint Collector. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the petitioner shall be entitled to function as Fair Price Shop Dealer, till disposal of the appeal by the 1^st respondent. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶24

L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J

¶25

Dated : 2^nd December, 2004

¶26

Note: Office to furnish copy in two days. (B/o.) Ts

¶27

¶28

1 The Joint Collector, Guntur, Guntur District.

¶29

2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur, Guntur District.

¶30

3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Pedanandipadu Mandal, Guntur District.

¶31

4 2 CCS to the G.P. for Civil Supplies, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad (OUT).

¶32

5 2CD copies

Smt. Lavu Jhansi Rani, v. The Joint Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Lavu Jhansi Rani, v. The Joint 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

A.Brahmananda Reddy, Vs The District Collector