Dismissed

Sri Maheshwara Oil and Rice Mill v. the Dist. Collector and Ors.

Telangana HC13 Jun 2005WP/11992/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner rice mill dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of its levy rice supplies. The Court held that the cause of action no longer existed due to the suspension of the petitioner's supply operations via the very order impugned, rendering the petition infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as infructuous. Petitioner directed to obtain eligibility certificate from first respondent before approaching second respondent.

Sri Maheshwara Oil and Rice Mill Vs the Dist… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2005)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO : 11992 of 2002

¶7

Between:

¶8

Sri.Maheshwara Oil & Rice Mill, Metpally (V), Karimnagar District, Rep. by its Proprietor M.Sanjeev Kumar, S/o Kistaiah, aged about 32 years, R/o Metpally (V), Karimnagar District.

¶9

..... PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1. The District Collector (Civil Supplies), Karimnagar, Karimnagar District.

¶12

2. The District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Karimnagar, Karimnagar 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 may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order dated 02.02.2002 issued in Proceeding No.MC.No:5/2002/No.G3/48/2002 by the 1^st respondent and also consequential order dated 05.02.2002 in Lr.No:Price 1(1) 2002-2002/Vol./II issued by the 2^nd respondent as illegal and arbitrary and contrary to principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 2^nd respondent to accept the rice from the petitioner towards mill levy.

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.PRABHAKAR RAO

¶16

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

¶17

The Court made the following:

¶18

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO

¶19

WRIT PETITION NO.11992 OF 2002

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

The petitioner - rice mill filed the present writ petition aggrieved by a communication dated 02.02.2002 sent by the first respondent to the second respondent not to accept levy rice from the petitioner - mill. The said letter was issued with reference to rice/paddy procurement year 2002. This Court while admitting the writ petition suspended the same and it is not denied before this Court that by reason of the suspension order, the petitioner was able to supply levy rice. The cause of action does not survive. In future, the petitioner may obtain appropriate eligibility certificate from the first respondent and then approach the second respondent for giving levy rice.

¶22

The writ petition, with the above observation, is dismissed as infructuous.

(V.V.S.RAO,J)

13.06.2005.

pln

1. The District Collector (Civil Supplies), Karimnagar, Karimnagar District.

¶28

2. The District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District.

¶29

3. Two CCs to Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT).

¶30

4. 2 CD copies.

Sri Maheshwara Oil and Rice Mill v. the Dist. Collector and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Maheshwara Oil and Rice Mill v. the Dist. Collector and Ors.

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

N.Dharma Reddy Kurnool Vs the Govt of A.P. Its Sec H.D. HYDAND2ORS

Vemula Satyalamma Vs The Superintendent of Police

T. Radhakrishnaiah, Vs The District Collector

Moola Venkata Lakshmi Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

P.Ramulu Medak Dist Vs the Dist Collector (Cs) Medakandanr

D.Dhanunjaya Vs Secretary