Single-bench order dismissing a writ petition for mandamus against the suspension of a fair price shop authorization. The court held the suspension order would automatically expire after 90 days and noted the existence of an effective appellate remedy under the Control Order.
Writ petition dismissed; interim relief application declared infructuous.
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.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.31007 of 2010
Date: 10.12.2010
Between:
Smt. A. Leela
..... Petitioner
AND
The Joint Collector, Krishna and others
.....Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri M.M.M. Srinivas
Counsel for Respondents: Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies
The Court made the following: ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside the order dated 12.11.2010 of respondent No.3, whereby he has suspended the petitioner’s fair price shop authorization.
The petitioner has mainly raised two grounds to assail the abovementioned order of respondent No.3, namely, that though
respondent No.3 is empowered to suspend the authorization for a period not less than 90 days, the impugned order does not indicate the period for which the order of suspension has been made and that the allegations made are not serious enough warranting suspension of the petitioner’s authorization.
In my opinion, even if the order passed by respondent No.3 does not stipulate the time limit, in view of the maximum period stipulated by the extant control order, the impugned order will automatically cease to be in force on the expiry of 90 days from the date of the order. As regards the second plea of the petitioner, it is not in dispute that he has an effective alternative remedy of an appeal under the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008. Therefore, it is not appropriate for this Court to examine the nature of the allegations on which suspension has been made. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by the impugned order of suspension, he is entitled to avail the remedy of appeal before respondent No.1.
Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.39443 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous.
10th December, 2010 GHN
________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. A. Leela
The Joint Collector, Krishna
other
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
