Allowed

Kum. Patchigolla Lalitha v. The Tahsildar

Telangana HC19 Jun 2009WP/12023/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Special Original Jurisdiction, held that the administrative order appointing a new in-charge for the petitioners' fair price shops was illegal because the petitioners' dealer authorizations had not been suspended. Consequently, the petition was allowed. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the respondent to permit the petitioners to resume functioni

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed; the impugned order was set aside; respondent No.1 is directed to permit the petitioners to function as fair price shop dealers until their authorizations are suspended o

Kum. Patchigolla Lalitha Vs The Tahsildar — Consumer Protection | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

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

¶2

FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.12023 of 2009

¶6

Between:

¶7

1 Kum. Patchigolla Lalitha D/o. Venkata Ramana R/o. Papayya Santhapalem, Anakapalle Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 2 Sri K.V.V. Sanyasi Setty S/o. Venkata Rao R/o. Papayya Santhapalem, Anakapalle Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

¶8

..... PETITIONERS

¶9

AND

¶10

1 The Tahsildar Anakapalle Mandal Visakhapatnam Dist. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam Dist. 3 Smt. Ch. Mangatalli Kondupalem Village, Anakapalle Mandal, Visakhapatnam Dist.

¶11

.....RESPONDENTS

¶12

Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.W.B.SRINIVAS

¶13

Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2:AGP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

¶14

The Court made the following :

¶15

ORDER:

¶16

This writ petition is filed for issuance of a mandamus to set aside order, dated 12.06.2009 whereby respondent No.1 made in-charge arrangements attached to the fair price shops of the petitioners for distribution of essential commodities to the cardholders.

¶17

A perusal of the impugned order shows that on 10.06.2009, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Regional Vigilance and Enforcement, Visakhapatnam inspected fair price shop Nos.78 and 79 and booked cases under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 on the ground that the petitioners were found to have committed certain irregularities in maintaining the records. On that basis, respondent No.1 kept the dealer of fair price shop No.80 of Kondupalem Village as incharge to fair price shop Nos.78 and 79 held by the petitioners for distribution of essential commodities to the cardholders.

¶18

Sri W.B.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order does not show that the authorizations of the petitioners are kept under suspension and, therefore, the order keeping somebody else as in-charge of the petitioners’ shops cannot be sustained in law.

¶19

Inasmuch as the impugned order does not show that the petitioners’ authorizations have been suspended, it is not permissible for respondent No.1 to entrust the distribution of essential commodities pertaining to the shops held by the petitioners to another dealer. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set

¶20

aside. Respondent No.1 is directed to permit the petitioners to function as fair price shop dealers of shop Nos.78 and 79 respectively so long as their authorizations are not suspended or cancelled.

¶21

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶22

19^th JUNE, 2009. Note: issue c.c. in three (3) days.

¶23

kvni

Kum. Patchigolla Lalitha v. The Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kum. Patchigolla Lalitha v. The Tahsildar

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

Borusu Satya Krishna Vs The District Collector,East Godavari District at Kakinada

Kotagiri Raja Goud, Vs The Superintendent of Police

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

Merva Venkata Subba Reddy Vs The Joint Collector

Bhukya Parishram, Vs The District Collector and District Magistrate Collectorate

G. Devanand Vs The Director General of Police