Disposed

Borusu Satya Krishna v. The District Collector,East Godavari District at Kakinada

Telangana HC18 Jun 2009WP/11843/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition filed by a fair price shop dealer challenging the inaction of a revenue officer in supplying essential commodities. The court directed the officer to pass an order on a pending show cause notice within four weeks and resume supply if action is dropped.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.3 to pass an appropriate order on the show cause notice within four weeks.

Borusu Satya Krishna Vs The District Collector,East… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11843 of 2009

¶6

Between:

¶7

Borusu Satya Krishna S/o.Rama satyanarayana Resident of H.No.21-66,Borusuvari Savaram Kothapet,East Godavari District

¶8

..... PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

1 The District Collector,East Godavari District at Kakinada

¶11

2 The Joint Collector, East Godavari District, at Kakinada

¶12

3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Amalapuram East Godavari District

¶13

4 The Tahsildar (Mandal Revenue officer),Kothapet Mandal East Godavari District

¶14

..RESPONDENTS

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.RAVI

¶16

Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

¶17

The Court made the following :

¶18

O R D E R:

¶19

This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent No.3 in supplying essential commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop No.9 of Kothapet, East Godavari District as illegal.

¶20

In his affidavit, the petitioner, the fair price shop dealer, averred that on account of his ill-health, he applied for leave and accordingly, leave was sanctioned and that an in-charge arrangement was made to distribute essential commodities attached to his shop by entrusting the same to a third party. On 23-09-2006, respondent No.3 issued show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the authorization granted to him should not be cancelled as he continued to fail to lift the essential commodities from December, 2005. In this writ petition, the petitioner has taken the stand that an explanation was submitted to respondent No.3 in reply to the said show cause notice on 05-10-2006, wherein he explained that as leave was sanctioned to him due to his illness, an in-charge arrangement was made and that he is not aware whether the in-charge dealer has not lifted the essential commodities by producing necessary D.Ds. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the said explanation was given by him as far back as October, 2006, no order has been passed so far and the essential commodities have not been supplied to him.

¶21

Inasmuch as the relief claimed by the petitioner in this writ petition is innocuous, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.3 to pass an appropriate order on the show cause notice dated 23-09-2006 issued to the petitioner, after considering the latter’s explanation, if any filed by him, within a period of four (4) weeks

¶22

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The supply of essential commodities should be resumed to the petitioner, if further action proposed in the show cause notice is dropped.

¶23

As a sequel to disposal of main petition WPMP No.15251 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

¶24

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶25

Dated 18^th June, 2009 vrn

Borusu Satya Krishna v. The District Collector,East Godavari District at Kakinada

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Borusu Satya Krishna v. The District Collector,East Godavari District at Kakinada

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Sri Devi Oil Agencies Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P. Ramakrishnaiah, Vs The Assistant Divisional Engineer (Operation)

M/s.Sri Santhoshi Filling Station, Ioc Dealer, situated at Vs The Chief Rationing Officer

Kotagiri Raja Goud, Vs The Superintendent of Police

Vision Gym and Recreation Club Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Superintendent of Police, Adilabad.

Dr. Beesu Anjaneyulu, Vs The Manager and its Recovery Agency