Dismissed

T.v.D.Koteswara Rao v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Telangana HC5 Feb 2008WP/12240/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition challenging a notification reserving a fair price shop dealership to Scheduled Tribe candidates. The court held that the petitioner's criminal conviction and suspended sentence of imprisonment rendered him ineligible, making the reservation valid due to lack of eligible BC candidates.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ineligible due to criminal record and suspended sentence; notification choosing ST candidate upheld.

T.v.D.Koteswara Rao Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2008)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.12240 of 2003

¶3

Date: 05.02.2008

¶4

Between:

¶5

T.V.D. Koteswara Rao

¶6

……PETITIONER(S)

¶7

A N D

¶8

1. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tenali, Guntur District and another

¶9

……RESPONDENT(S)

¶10

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU

¶11

WRIT PETITION No.12240 of 2003

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

No representation for petitioner. Heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents.

¶14

2. This petition is filed questioning the Notification in Rc.No.1837/02/K dated 16.06.2003 reserving the dealership of fair price shop in Sekuru village of Chebrolu Mandal to Scheduled Tribe candidates.

¶15

3. The case of the petitioner is that in pursuance of the Notification in Rc.No.1837/02/K issued on 17.10.2002 calling for applications to fill up the vacancy of dealership of fair price shop caused due to the removal of R.Venkateswarlu as fair price shop dealer, he and others submitted their applications and his name appeared in the list of selected candidates published on 29.10.2002. But without giving him the appointment as the fair price shop dealer, the respondents issued the impugned notification reserving the dealership of the fair price shop of the village to Scheduled Tribe candidates without assigning any reasons, ostensibly on the ground that there are no eligible candidates from B.C. group to be appointed as fair price shop dealer though he, in fact, belongs to B.C. group and was shown as a selected candidate in the list. So, the impugned notification is liable to be quashed.

¶16

4. The Revenue Divisional Officer of Tenali Division filed his counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents inter alia stating that though the name of petitioner was shown in the list of selected candidates, as it came to light during the enquiry relating to his antecedents that he was convicted in C.C.No.77 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the VI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntur, and that the sentence imposed against him only was suspended in the appeal preferred by him and as a candidate for appointment as a dealer should not have any criminal record, he was not given the appointment. As the vacancies reserved for the Scheduled Tribe candidates in the district are less than 6% and as no eligible candidate from the B.C. group is available in the village, the impugned notification reserving the dealership of fair price shop in the village to the Schedule Tribe candidates was issued.

¶17

5. As per clause (4) of the notification dated 17.10.2002, basing on which petitioner submitted his application for dealership, the applicant should have no adverse antecedents such as Criminal cases or any punishments or pendency of cases under Essential Commodities Act, 1955, or cancellation of licenses or punishments or pending charges under Legal Metrology Laws, Marketing Laws, Labour Laws or bad conduct as a Dealer or as an individual. The averment in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent that the petitioner was convicted in a criminal case and was sentenced to imprisonment and in the appeal preferred by him, the sentence of imprisonment only was suspended, is not denied or disputed by the petitioner by filing a reply affidavit. In view thereof, it cannot be said that he is a person eligible for appointment as a fair price shop dealer. So, the respondents not considering his appointment and issuing fresh notification re-

¶18

reserving the shop for Scheduled Tribe candidates as there are no eligible candidates from the B.C. group for being appointed as a fair price shop dealer cannot be said to be erroneous. So, I find no merits in the writ petition and so the writ petition is dismissed with costs.

¶19

-------------05.02.2008

¶20

Cvrk

T.v.D.Koteswara Rao v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.v.D.Koteswara Rao v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

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

G.S.R. Durga Prasad, S/o late Rama rao Vs The Commissioner, Narasapuram Municipality

Thokapallygram Panchyat Vs Sec.Panchyat Raj Dept and 5 Ors.

M/s Gummadi Constructions Ltd., Vs Kapra Municipality

V.Varalakshmi, Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Bandi Krishnaiah Vs The Grampanchayat Tiruvuru Krishna Dist.

M.Balaji, Vs Andhra Pradesh Beverages Corporation Limited