Dismissed

Kaveri Mahila Sangam, v. Joint Collector, Anantapur

Telangana HC15 Dec 2004WP/23317/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the first respondent to dispose of the petitioner's pending appeal regarding the cancellation of her authorisation within three weeks, noting the cancellation allegedly violated procedural clauses of the AP State Public Distribution System Control Order 2001 but declining interference as the appeal remedy was available.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to pass appropriate orders in the pending appeal or stay petition within three weeks of receiving the judgment copy.

Kaveri Mahila Sangam, Vs Joint Collector… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | 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 : 23317 of 2004

¶7

Between:

¶8

Kaveri Mahila Sangam, Rep. by its President V. Arunamma, Garudapuram Village, Kalyangurg Mandal, Anantapur District.

¶9

..... PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The Joint Collector, Anantapur, Anantapur District.

¶12

2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram, Anantapur District.

¶13

.....RESPONDENTS

¶14

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 appropriate writ, more particularly issue writ of mandamus, directing the1st respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner on 23-11-2004 before the Joint Collector, Anantapur.

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner: KOTHAPALLI RAM MOHAN CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

¶16

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

¶17

The authorisation of the petitioner was cancelled by the second respondent through proceedings dated 08-09-2004. Initially, the petitioner filed W.P.No.18691 of 2004 challenging the same. The writ petition was dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal. The petitioner had accordingly, preferred an appeal before the first respondent together with an application for stay. His complaint is that no orders have been passed so far either in the appeal or in the stay petition. Appropriate directions are sought for in this regard.

¶18

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

¶19

It is true that the authorisation of the petitioner was cancelled without conducting any enquiry and without issuing any notice. On the face of it, such a cancellation is in violation of Clause 5(4) of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System Control Order 2001. The provision does not maintain any distinction between a temporary and a permanent dealer. This aspect needs to be taken into account by the appellate authority while passing the orders in the appeal or the application for stay, as the case may be. Since the petitioner had availed the remedy of appeal, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, at this stage.

¶20

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to pass appropriate orders in the appeal or the stay petition, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.

¶21

15-12-2004 Note: Issue C.C. by two days. (B/o)

¶22

kdl

¶23

¶24

1 Joint Collector, Anantapur, Anantapur District.

¶25

2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram, Anantapur District.

¶26

3 Two C.Cs. to the Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, High Court Buildings, A.P., Hyderabad, (OUT).

¶27

4 Two C.D. Copies.

Kaveri Mahila Sangam, v. Joint Collector, Anantapur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaveri Mahila Sangam, v. Joint Collector, Anantapur

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

Ch. Brahmanandam, Vs The Joint Collector, Prakasam District

Gabbata Lingaiah, Vs The Joint Collector

Mynampati Sriramulu, Vs The Manadal Revenue officer

Kothuri Subba Rao, Vs The Joint Collector

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