Disposed

Jeevaraj Barde v. The Revenue Divisional Officer,Kamareddy,Nizamabad

Telangana HC17 Jun 2010WP/25152/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging suspension of fair price shop authorisation due to the petitioner's son's alleged interference in verification proceedings, the Court directed a complete expedient inquiry within two months, maintaining the interim suspension order.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to complete the inquiry into allegations against the petitioner within two months; the suspension order remains suspended during the inquiry.

Jeevaraj Barde Vs The Revenue Divisional… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.25152 of 2009

¶3

Dated: 17-06-2010

Between:

Jeevaraj Barde.

… Petitioner

And

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kamareddy, Nizamabad District & others.

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶11

WRIT PETITION No.25152 of 2009

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

The petitioner is an authorised fair price shop dealer for distribution of scheduled commodities. The grant of authorisation and conditions to run the fair price shop are governed by the provisions of the A.P. Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008. The Government officials have undertaken the verification of some bogus ration cards in Kamareddy town. On the allegation that the son of the petitioner has interfered with the process of such verification, the authorisation granted to the petitioner, is suspended by an order, dated 10.11.2009, passed by the 1^st respondent in Proceedings No.B1/1546/2009. Challenging the said order, this writ petition is filed.

¶14

While issuing the notice before admission, the impugned order of suspension is suspended by this Court, by an order, dated 20.11.2009. Though the said order is passed about more than six months back, no counter affidavit is filed by the respondents.

¶15

Whether the petitioner has violated any conditions of authorisation under the provisions of the Control Order, 2008, is a matter for inquiry. However, as the authorisation is granted in the name of the petitioner, merely on the ground that his son has interfered in the matter of verification of bogus ration cards, prima facie, appears, is not a valid ground to suspend the authorisation of the petitioner.

¶16

As much as the suspension order was suspended by this Court on 20.11.2009 and as no counter affidavit is filed so far, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, directing the 1^st respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Kamareddy, Nizamabad District, to complete the inquiry on the allegations levelled against the petitioner, so as to examine whether there is any interference by the son of the petitioner, and whether any such interference will amount to contravening the provisions of the Control Order, 2008 or not, and to complete the inquiry as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As much as the impugned order is already suspended by this Court on 20.11.2009, it shall also remain suspended during the pendency of the inquiry proceedings.

¶17

Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶18

R. SUBHASH REDDY, J

¶19

17^th June 2010 ajr

Jeevaraj Barde v. The Revenue Divisional Officer,Kamareddy,Nizamabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jeevaraj Barde v. The Revenue Divisional Officer,Kamareddy,Nizamabad

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

C.Dhanalakshmi Devi Vs The District Registrar,Ramnagar, Anantapur

Chalapathi Chit Fund Private Ltd., Guntur Vs Mr. Adsumalli Malleswara Rao

N. Srinivasan Vs a. Madhavachari

The New India Assurance Company Limited, Vs Sri Ch. Hanman Singh

Indian Hair Industries (P) Ltd. Vs Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Vari Devasthanam

Smt v.Lakshmi Bai, Vs The Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Company