Allowed

Devakivada Vednkateswara Rao v. The District Collector

Telangana HC16 Oct 2008WP/20766/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the cancellation of authorization as a fair price shop. The High Court held that the cancellation order was issued without a proper enquiry, specifically lacking a notice framing charges or an opportunity to explain the alleged contraventions. Consequently, the order violated principles of natural justice and was set aside.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order cancelling the authorization is set aside with a direction to the third respondent to pass appropriate orders afresh within six weeks.

Devakivada Vednkateswara Rao Vs The… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.20766 of 2008

¶6

Between:

¶7

Devakivada Vednkateswara Rao S/o.SAtyanarayana Naidu, Tallavaram Depot No.2, Veeraghattam Mandal, Srikakulam District.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

1 The District Collector, Srikakulam District.

¶11

2 The Joint Collector, Srikakulam District.

¶12

3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakonda, Srikakulam District.

¶13

4 The Tahsildar, Veeraghattam Mandal, Srikakulam 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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the proceedings 3rd respondent passed in Rc.No.1091/08/B dated 29.8.2008 in canceling the authorization of the petitioner as fair price shop of Talavaram Depot II, Veeraghattam Mandal, Srikakulam District as illegal arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner as Fair Price Shop dealer and pass such other or further orders.

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.JAGANNATHA RAO

¶17

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

¶18

The Court made the following:

¶19

THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶20

WRIT PETITION NO.20766 of 2008

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

The petitioner is the authorized dealer of Fair Price

¶23

Shop of Tallavaram, Shop No.II, Veeraghattam Mandal, Srikakulam District. His authorization was suspended pending enquiry into the alleged contraventions of the provisions of the A.P. P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2001. Though the petitioner’s appeal was allowed by the second respondent herein and the order of suspension was set aside, on a revision petition preferred by the card holders, the first respondent-District Collector, Srikakulam District revived the order of suspension and directed the third respondent to complete the enquiry. Pursuant thereto, the third respondent issued a notice dated 18.07.2008 calling upon the petitioner to appear in person. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared before the third respondent on 21.07.2008. Thereafter, the impugned order of cancellation dated 29.08.2008 came to be passed stating that a copy of the petitioner’s statement recorded on 21.07.2008 was sent to the Tahsildar,

¶24

Veeraghattam Mandal, calling for his remarks and after considering the said remarks, it was found that the allegations against the petitioner were proved.

¶25

The said order dated 29.08.2008 is challenged in this Writ Petition contending inter alia that since no notice was issued to the petitioner framing the charges and giving him an opportunity to make his representation, the impugned order of cancellation is arbitrary, illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice.

¶26

I have heard the learned counsel for both parties. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the authorization was cancelled only on the basis of the statement said to have been recorded on 21.07.2008.

¶27

Learned Government Pleader, under instructions from the respondents, stated that except the notice dated 18.07.2008 under which the petitioner was called upon to appear before the Revenue Divisional Officer on 21.07.2008, no other notice was issued to the petitioner.

¶28

Thus, it is clear that no notice was issued to the petitioner specifying the alleged contraventions and giving

¶29

him an opportunity to explain the same. Thus, there was no enquiry at all as required under law. The procedure adopted by the third respondent while cancelling the authorization was not in conformity with the principles of natural justice and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside on that ground alone.

¶30

Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the third respondent to pass appropriate orders afresh following due process of law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of six {6} weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶31

____________ (G.ROHINI, J)

¶32

16^th October 2008 RRB

Devakivada Vednkateswara Rao v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devakivada Vednkateswara Rao v. The District Collector

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

Avula Ashanna Vs Central Power Distribution Company Ltd., Andhra Pradesh

Bellamkonda Satyanarayana Reddy, Vs The Joint Collector (Cs)

M/s. Uma Maheswara Agencies Vs The Sr. Manager, Qcc (S)

Maddineni Chitanya, Vs The Commissioner of Police

M/s. Dhanyalakshmi Dal Traders, Vs Assistant Grain Purchasing Officer

M. Venkata Ramaiah Vs The Joint Collector and Addl. Dist. Magistrate