The High Court dismissed a writ petition where the petitioner sought interim relief to function as a fair price shop dealer while another pending petition by the same party was adjudicated, citing the settled principle against seeking interim orders in a separate writ.
The writ petition was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO : 22934 of 2004
Between:
Sindhe Srinivasa Rao S/o Krishnamurthy
8th ward Fair Price Shop Dealer r/o 8-11-20, Kothavari Street, Narasaraopet Town, Guntur District
..... PETITIONER
AND
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet Town, Guntur District
.....RESPONDENT
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 an appropriate Writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to allow the petitioner to function as the dealer of B.C. Category fair Price shop in 8th ward, Narasaraopet Town till the final adjudication of WP No. 18500of 2004 pending before this Hon'ble Court and to pass such other order orders or orders.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.R.PRABHAKAR
Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES
The Court at the stage of admission made the following ORDER:
On the face of it, this writ petition cannot be maintained. The prayer in this writ petition is to the effect that the petitioner be allowed to function as the dealer till W.P.No.18500 of 2004 filed by the petitioner himself is disposed of. It is settled principle of law that no writ petition can be filed seeking interim or interlocutory orders. Even according to the petitioner, he has already filed W.P.18500 of 2004, in relation to the dealership in question. The relief claimed in this writ petition can be sought for by way of filing a W.P.M.P. in that writ petition.
Hence, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to file W.P.M.P. in W.P.No. 18500 of 2004. No order as to costs.
10.12.2004
ksld
To
1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet Town, Guntur District 2 Two CCs. to the G.P. for Civil Supplies, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad (OUT) 3 Two CD copies.
Sindhe Srinivasa Rao
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet Town
L. Narasimha Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
