Allowed

Kothuri Subba Rao, v. The Joint Collector

Telangana HC15 Dec 2004WP/23214/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the remittal of his appeal by the first respondent without a clear direction regarding his interim suspension as a Fair Price Shop dealer. The court found the disposal discordant with appellate principles and ordered his status be continued pending final orders.

What did the court decide?

The order of suspension dated 21.07.2004 is set aside. The petitioner shall continue as Fair Price Shop dealer until the second respondent passes final orders on the appeal.

Kothuri Subba Rao, 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

WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO : 23214 of 2004

¶7

Between:

¶8

Kothuri Subba Rao, S/o.Venkateswarlu, Ramakur Village, J.Panguluru Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶9

..... PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The Joint Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole.

¶12

2 The Revenue Divisional officer, Ongole, Prakasam District.

¶13

3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, J.Panguluru, Prakasam District.

¶14

.....RESPONDENTS

¶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 particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein to accept the Bank D.D.No.829516 for Rs.21,009/- dt.09-12-04 from the petitioner and order allotment of E.Cs for the month of December, 2004 by issuing the release order therefor and also for the subsequent months pending the orders to be passed by the 2nd respondent in respect of the petitioners' F.P.shop No.1 of Ramkurvillage, J.Pangulur Mandal, Prakasam District and to pass such other orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.I.GOPAL REDDY

¶17

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

¶18

The Court at the admission stage made the following :

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

The 2^nd respondent passed an order, dated 21.07.2004, suspending the authorization of the petitioner to run the Fair Price Shop. Aggrieved thereby, he preferred an appeal before the 1^st respondent. He also filed an application for stay. The 1^st respondent rejected the application for stay through his order, dated 03.08.2004. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed W.P.No.14071 of 2004. The writ petition was allowed on 10.08.2004 and the order, dated 03.08.2004, passed by the first respondent was set aside. The petitioner was directed to be continued as Dealer till the 1^st respondent disposes of the appeal itself. Thereafter, the 1^st respondent passed an order, dated 19.11.2004, disposing of the appeal and remanding the matter to the second respondent. The same is challenged in this writ petition.

¶21

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

¶22

The petitioner availed the remedy of appeal provided for under Clause 20 of the A.P.Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001. An appellate authority is vested with the power to confirm or set aside the order under appeal. The question of remanding the matter by the appellate authority would arise only when the order under appeal is set aside.

¶23

Through his order, dated 19.11.2004, the 1^st respondent remanded the matter to the 2^nd respondent. However, it is not indicated as to whether the order of suspension passed by the 2^nd respondent is affirmed or set aside. A direction was issued to the 2^nd respondent to dispose of the case within a period of two weeks, after giving a show-cause notice and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. An observation is

¶24

made to the effect that the suspension is only an interim punishment. This Court finds that the disposal given by the 1^st respondent to the appeal preferred by the petitioner does not accord with the spirit of the relevant provision or the general principles governing the exercise of appellate powers.

¶25

The petitioner was enabled to function as Fair Price Shop Dealer, pending disposal of the appeal. There is no plausible objection as to why the same arrangement cannot be continued till the 2^nd respondent passes final orders.

¶26

Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the petitioner shall be entitled to continue as Fair Price Shop Dealer till the 2^nd respondent disposes of the case against the petitioner. The order of suspension, dated 21.07.2004, shall accordingly stand set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶27

15.12.2004

¶28

Note: Issue C.C. in two days

¶29

(B/o) Jsu

¶30

¶31

1 The Joint Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole.

¶32

2 The Revenue Divisional officer, Ongole, Prakasam District.

¶33

3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, J.Panguluru, Prakasam District.

¶34

4 2CCs to the G.P.for Civil Supplies, High Court Buildings,

¶35

Hyderabad. (O.U.T)

¶36

5 2CD copies.

Kothuri Subba Rao, v. The Joint Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kothuri Subba Rao, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ch. Brahmanandam, Vs The Joint Collector, Prakasam District

Gabbata Lingaiah, Vs The Joint Collector

Mynampati Sriramulu, Vs The Manadal Revenue officer

Kaveri Mahila Sangam, Vs Joint Collector, Anantapur

V. Adi Lakshmi W/o Late B. Gurunadham Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

B. Purnachandra Rao S/o B. Guruchandranam Vs The Station House Officer, Chatrinaka