Allowed

Nanda Kishore Bung, v. The Sub Collector, Asifabad

Telangana HC6 Feb 2008WP/22958/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of a fair price shop dealership. The court held that the cancellation was invalid as the petitioner applied for renewal after the deadline, which was permissible under Rule 5 of the Control Orders.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed with costs; the impugned order of cancellation is quashed.

Nanda Kishore Bung, Vs The Sub Collector, Asifabad — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2008)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.22958 OF 2004

¶3

Dated 6th February, 2008

¶4

Between: Nanda Kishore Bung …Petitioner And The Sub-Collector, Asifabad and another …Respondents

¶5

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.22958 OF 2004

¶7

O R D E R:

¶8

This writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 03-12-2004 of the first respondent removing the petitioner from the dealership of the fair price shop.

¶9

The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer at Kagaznagar, Adilabad District with authorization valid up to 31-03-2004. After issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner for cancellation of his dealership on the ground that he who should have filed the application for renewal of authorization before the end of February, 2004 made the application in March 2004 first respondent cancelled his dealership by the order impugned.

¶10

Though the case is of the year 2004, the respondents have not filed their counter-affidavits till today.

¶11

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

¶12

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the ratio in Pankaj Kumar Agarwal vs. The Sub Collector [1] and anothe r and Rule 5 of the A.P.State Public Distribution System (Control) Orders, 2001, referred to in that judgment, the order impugned is liable to be set aside.

¶13

The contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader is that since the petitioner is running a kirana shop when he is not supposed to be carrying on any other business as per sub-clause (15) of Clause 12 of G.O.Ms.No.53 dated 06-10-2004, and as his explanation is not found satisfactory, his dealership was cancelled and so there are no grounds to interfere with the order impugned.

¶14

In the order impugned it is no doubt, mentioned that the fair price shop dealer shall not have any connection with any other business either directly or indirectly but it does not disclose that the dealership of the petitioner was cancelled because of his running a kirana shop, as the operative portion of the order impugned reads-

¶15

“Since their authorization was valid up to 31-03-2004 only, the application for renewal of authorization was to be made at least one month prior to the date of expiry of authorization, i.e., by the end of February, 2004; but the application was filed in March, 2004. Keeping the above in view, the authorization of Sri Nand Kishore Bang is hereby cancelled and he is removed from the dealership. Orders are issued for confiscating his trade deposit and security deposit.”

¶16

As the order impugned does not show that the authorization of the petitioner was cancelled because of his running a kirana shop, and as the order impugned clearly shows that the authorization of the petitioner is being cancelled only because of his not submitting the application for renewal before the end of February, 2004 the same is liable to be set aside because in Pankaj Kumar Agarwal’s case (supra), the learned Judge, after referring to Rule 5 of the Control Orders, held that an application for renewal could be made within one month after the expiry of the period of licence. In view thereof the order impugned is quashed. If the petitioner violated any of the Rules,

¶17

respondents are at liberty to proceed against him as per law.

¶18

Hence, the writ petition is allowed with costs and the order

¶19

impugned is quashed.

¶20

__________________ C.Y.Somayajulu,J Dated 6th February, 2008 vrn

¶21

[1] W.P.No.22939 of 2004, dated 03-08-2006

Nanda Kishore Bung, v. The Sub Collector, Asifabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nanda Kishore Bung, v. The Sub Collector, Asifabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

V.Varalakshmi, Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Bandi Krishnaiah Vs The Grampanchayat Tiruvuru Krishna Dist.

M/s. Radha Industries, Vs The Hyderabad Urban Development Authority

Sri. Sudarshan Vs Municipal Co-operation of Hyderabad.

Mohd.Munnawar Hussain, Vs Municipal Corporation of Hyd