Allowed

Kanchapu Ramalingaiah, v. The Joint Collector

Telangana HC6 Dec 2004WP/22402/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged his suspension as a Fair Price Shop Dealer and inaction by the appellate authority in his appeal. The Court stayed the suspension order pending the disposal of the appeal and directed the petitioner to continue essential commodity distribution.

What did the court decide?

Stay of the suspension order dated 14.10.2004 and direction to the petitioner to continue distribution of essential commodities until the appeal is disposed of.

Kanchapu Ramalingaiah, 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

MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO : 22402 of 2004

¶7

Between:

¶8

Kanchapu Ramalingaiah, S/o. Ankamma, Hindu,

¶9

R/o. Chagantivaripalem Village, Mupalla Mandal, Guntur District.

¶10

.....PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The Joint Collector, Guntur, Guntur Districtr.

¶13

2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur Revenue Division, Guntur, Guntur District.

¶14

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

¶15

.....RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 1st Respondent Authority in not passing any orders on the Appeal Case filed by the petitioner vide Appeal NO. 55/2004-S7, as arbitrary, illegal, null and void and is against the principles of natural justice and norms of the public policy and further issue consequential directions to the Respondent Authorities to continue the petitioner as Fair Price shop Dealer.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.VENKATESWARA RAO GUDAPATI

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

¶19

The Court made the following :

¶20

O R D E R:

¶21

The petitioner was appointed as Fair Price Shop Dealer of Chagantivaripalem village, Mupalla Mandal of Guntur District. On 14.10.2004, the second respondent issued a show-cause notice and passed order of suspension of the dealership pending enquiry on the basis of certain allegations. The petitioner claims to have preferred an appeal before he first respondent on 1.11.2004, together with an application for grant of stay. His grievance is that no orders have been passed so far by the appellate authority.

¶22

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

¶23

The first respondent issued a show-cause notice dated 14.10.2004 on the basis of the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer. The allegation against the petitioner is that he collected higher rates for commodities from the card holders was not maintaining working hours, and running the Fair Price Shop benami. The petitioner contends that soon after the appointment of the petitioner, on account of political rivalries, the appointment was kept in abeyance and an unsuccessful candidate was appointed as a temporary dealer. It is stated that such a measure was stalled by this Court, and with a view to take vengeance, the sarpanch of the village has managed the entire matter.

¶24

The truth or otherwise of the allegation of the petitioner needs to be considered either by the second respondent while passing the final orders on consideration of the explanation, or by the first respondent while disposing of the appeal. Once the petitioner has availed the remedy of appeal and applied for interim orders, the first respondent ought to have taken prompt action in disposal of stay application. Delay in disposal of the application for stay some times would defeat the very purpose of preferring an appeal. Taking the totality of the circumstances into account, this Court is of the view that the suspension ordered against the petitioner

¶25

be stayed, till the disposal of the appeal by the first respondent.

¶26

Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that the order of suspension dated 14.10.2004 passed against the petitioner shall remain stayed till the first respondent disposes of the appeal and that the petitioner shall be entitled to the distribution of essential commodities, pending disposal of the appeal. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶27

6^th December, 2004

¶28

pan

¶29

¶30

1 The Joint Collector, Guntur, Guntur Districtr.

¶31

2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur Revenue Division, Guntur, Guntur District.

¶32

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

¶33

4 Two C.Cs to the Government Pleader for Revenue,

¶34

High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. (OUT)

¶35

5. Two C.D.copies.

Kanchapu Ramalingaiah, v. The Joint Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanchapu Ramalingaiah, 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

P. Dayamani, Vs Joint Collector

K. Cirra Reddy, Vs Joint Collector, Prakasham District

Harikishan Karwa Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments

Nagaraja Guptha S/o P. Pullaiah Vs The Joint Collector

G. Anjanamma, Vs The Joint Collector

B.Ekanthamaiah, Vs The Joint Collector