Writ petition filed by a Fair Price Shop dealer seeking direction to issue release orders for the full allotted PDS rice stock. The High Court dismissed the petition as infructuous due to the efflux of time since the grievance pertained to supply shortfalls for June 2007.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI
WRIT PETITION NO.13993 OF 2007
Kum D.Mamatha .... PETITIONER
AND
The Revenue Divisional Officer and another …RESPONDENTS
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI
WRIT PETITION NO.13993 OF 2007
ORDER:
The petitioner is an authorized Fair Price Shop dealer in respect of shop No.4554, NTPC, Ramagundam, Karimnagar District. He seeks to declare the action of respondent No.2-Tahsildar, Ramagundam, Karimnagar District, in not issuing the release orders for lifting the Essential Commodities as per the allotment made by the Civil Supplies Department as arbitrary and consequently direct respondent No.2 to issue release orders to the entire extent of allotment made to the said shop.
2. The limited grievance espoused in this writ petition is that though
the Andhra Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation, allotted 185.64 quintals of PDS rice for the month of June, 2007, respondent No.2 issued permission to lift 95 quintals of rice only. The petitioner therefore, urges that she was entitled for lifting the entire stock as allotted by the Civil Supplies Department and respondent No.2 ought not to have reduced the supply, instead he was bound to issue the release orders in respect of the entire stocks so allotted.
3. Since the grievance was limited insofar as the short supply of stock only for the month of June, 2007, due to efflux of time, the cause in this writ petition does not survive for adjudication. However, if for any reason, in future, respondent No.2 does not issue release orders to the entire extent as allotted, the petitioner is always at liberty to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings.
4. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.
__________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J
SEPTEMBER 23, 2010. YVL
Kum Mamatha
The Revenue Divisional Officer
The Tahsildar
Noushad Ali
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
