Allowed

K. Prabhakar v. The District Collector

Telangana HC9 Dec 2011WP/14553/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge Writ Court set aside an order cancelling a fair price dealer's authorization. The cancellation was passed without recording findings on allegations and ignored an interim suspension order granting hearing rights. The matter was remanded to inquire afresh.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of cancellation dated 12.06.2009 set aside and matter remanded to Revenue Divisional Officer to inquire afresh within three months after giving opportunity of hearing.

K. Prabhakar Vs The District Collector — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.14553 of 2009

¶3

Date : 09.12.2011

Between :

K. Prabhakar.

…..Petitioner

And

The District Collector, Medak District & others.

¶9

…..Respondents

¶10

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14553 of 2009

¶11

ORDER :

¶12

This writ petition is filed, seeking a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the order, dated 21.03.2009, passed by the 1^st respondent-District Collector in Case No.CSA/4/Rev/2008, confirming the order passed by the 2^nd respondent in Proceedings No.CSA/1/08, dated 21.07.2008, and the order passed by the 4^th respondent in Proceedings No.B/127/2008, dated 23.01.2008, as illegal and arbitrary and contrary to Clause 5(4) of A.P.State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001, and consequently set aside the order, dated 12.06.2009, passed by the 3^rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer in Proceedings No.B2/261/2008.

¶13

The petitioner is authorized fair price shop dealer for distribution of essential commodities in Togarpalli village of Kondapur Mandal in Medak District. On certain alleged irregularities, the authorization of petitioner was suspended pending inquiry, by order, dated 23.01.2008, passed by the 4^th respondent-Tahsildar in Proceedings No.B/127/2008. Against the said order of suspension, the petitioner has filed appeal, which was dismissed by the 2^nd respondent-Joint Collector, and the revision preferred by the petitioner before the 1^st respondent-District

¶14

Collector has also ended in dismissal. In view of the same, the 4^th respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, by order dated 12.06.2009, passed in Proceedings No.B2/261/08, cancelled the petitioner’s authorization. Hence, this writ petition.

¶15

At the stage of admission, this Court granted interim suspension on 21.07.2009, by observing that the impugned orders are bereft of reasons and are passed without framing any charges against the petitioner. The said interim order continued all along and though the writ petition is of 2009, respondents did not choose to file counter affidavit.

¶16

From a perusal of the impugned proceedings of cancellation, it is clear that no findings are recorded on the allegations made against the petitioner. This Court has granted interim suspension as early as on 21.07.2009 and the said order continued all along. In that view of the matter, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, by setting aside the impugned order of cancellation, dated 12.06.2009, with a direction to the respondents to consider the matter afresh.

¶17

Accordingly, the order, dated 12.06.2009, passed by the 3^rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer in Proceedings No.B2/261/ 2008, is set aside and the matter is remanded to him, with a direction to inquire into the

¶18

allegations made against the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶19

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

¶20

______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J

¶21

9^th December 2011 rrb/ajr

K. Prabhakar v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Prabhakar v. The District Collector

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

Dr.Sudhir R.Nayak, Vs The Commissioner of Endowments

M/s.Sree Balaji Wines, N.P.Kunta, Licence No.220/2006-2008, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its

G. Lakshman, Vs The District Collector (Civil Supplies)

Smt. K. Sarojini W/o K.V. Chalapathi Rao Vs The Commissioner for Co-operation and Registrar of Co-

G. Farah Raju, Vs The Commissioner for Co-operation and

A.Bhupathi Reddy, Vs The State of A.P. Rep by its Prl.Secretary