Disposed

T. Ratnamaiah , Venkataratnam v. The Joint Collector, Anantapur District

Telangana HC4 Dec 2007WP/24053/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court issued rule nisi in a writ petition challenging the inaction of the Joint Collector regarding seized stocks. The court directed the Joint Collector to complete the enquiry within two weeks and consider releasing the stocks if satisfied with the petitioners' contentions,量大 before disposing the petition. The petition is disposed of with directions to the respondent to complete the enq

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Joint Collector to complete the enquiry within two weeks and consider releasing the stocks if satisfied with the petitioners' contentions.

T. Ratnamaiah , Venkataratnam Vs The Joint… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2007)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA

¶2

Writ Petition No.24053 of 2007

¶3

th Date: 4 December, 2007

¶4

Between :-

¶5

T. Ratnamaiah $ Venkataratam

¶6

And 3 others .. Petitioners

¶7

And

¶8

The Joint Collector, Anantapur District Anantapur and another .. Respondents

¶9

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA Writ Petition No.24053 of 2007

¶10

ORDER:-

¶11

This Court issued rule nisi on 3-12-2007. Counter affidavit is filed.

¶12

2. Heard Sri Nasaraiah Golla, the learned Counsel representing the writ petitioners and the learned G.P. for Civil Supplies.

¶13

3. The learned Counsel representing the writ petitioners placed strong reliance on the decision in V.V.SUBBA RAO AND ANOTHER v. GOLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ONGOLE PRAKASAM District AND ANOTHER^[1] and would maintain that the concerned authorities have no power to seize the stocks at all.

¶14

4. Per contra, the learned G.P. for Civil Supplies would maintain that as far as the power of seizure, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever in the light of the relevant Control Orders. But however, the learned G.P. for Civil Supplies would maintain that whether it is an agricultural produce or not, it is a matter to be decided by the concerned Joint Collector.

¶15

5. Heard both the Counsel.

¶16

6. The Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the 1^st respondent in not passing orders in Claim Petition-cum-Objection filed by the petitioners vide No.K3/590/07/AP on the file of Joint Collector, Anantapur, as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and consequently drop further action, and pass such other suitable orders. 7. Several facts had been narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and a counter affidavit had been filed denying several of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. It is no doubt true that whether the seized stocks are agricultural produce or not, it is a question of fact to be decided. In the peculiar facts and circumstances, let the 1^st respondent – Joint Collector, Anantapur, complete the enquiry within a period of two weeks from today and also consider the release of stocks in the event of the 1^st respondent being satisfied with the contentions advanced by the writ petitioners. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No

¶17

order as to costs.

¶18

Justice P.S.Narayana

¶19

4^th December, 2007 NOTE: C.C. today smr

¶20

[1] 2005 (2) ALD 94

T. Ratnamaiah , Venkataratnam v. The Joint Collector, Anantapur District

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Ratnamaiah , Venkataratnam v. The Joint Collector, Anantapur District

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hanuman Vyas, Vs The State through the Inspector of Police

Chitikina Satyanarayana, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

The a.P.Kerosene Hawkers Sangam Krosur Mandal Vs The Joint Collector

Praveen Kumar Bolisetty, S/o Srinivasarao Vs The Governmen of India rep by its Secretary, Ministryof

Shaik Ismail Shariff, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer (Civil Supplies)

Sadev Yada, Vs The Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department