The High Court allowed the petitioner, a fair price shop dealer whose dealership was cancelled pending an appeal, to continue trading while the appeal before the Joint Collector is disposed of within four weeks.
Petitioner permitted to continue dealership pending disposal of appeal by Joint Collector within four weeks.
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
WEDNSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY
WRIT PETITION No.157 of 2011
Between:
Y. RAmanjaneyulu
..... PETITIONER
AND
1. The Joint Colelctor & Addl. & District Magistrate, Anantapur, Anantapur District & 2 others
..... RESPONDENTS
The Court made the following :
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY
WRIT PETITION No.157 of 2011
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed seeking writ of mandamus for declaring the orders passed by the first respondent rejecting the petition filed for a stay on 20.12.2010 as illegal and arbitrary.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the Civil Supplies. Perused the records.
3. The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer of Vidapanakal Village. According to the petitioner, he has been discharging his duties as such for the past 20 years without any complaint from any card holder or authorities. He alleges that based on a complaint lodged by the Mandal Parishad President, a show cause notice, dated 17.04.2010, was issued and he submitted his explanation on 05.05.2010. The petitioner’s grievance is that though three charges were made against him and charge Nos.1 and 2 were held to be not proved and his dealership was cancelled on the ground that Charge No.3 relating to diversion of kerosene oil to the black market which was held to be proved. Assailing the said order of cancellation of dealership, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Joint Collector-cum-Additional District Magistrate, Anantapur, and the same is pending. The petitioner moved the learned Joint Collector, Anantapur, for stay of operation of the impugned order of cancellation of the dealership. By order, dated 20.12.2010, which is impugned in the present Writ Petition, the learned Joint Collector, Anantapur, rejected the stay application and directed the Revenue Divisional
Officer, Anantapur, to send the records urgently for hearing the main appeal.
5. As the appeal is pending before the learned Joint Collector, Anantapur, it is considered neither just nor proper to enter upon the merits of the case. However, as the order of cancellation of the dealership is the subject matter of the appeal pending before the Joint Collector, Anantapur, it is considered that while directing the learned Joint Collector, Anantapur, to dispose of the appeal expeditiously, the petitioner can be permitted to continue with the dealership during the pendency of the appeal. The learned Joint Collector, Anantapur, is, therefore, directed to dispose of the appeal within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and the petitioner be continued with the dealership till then.
6. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
____________________ (G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J)
Date: 12th January, 2011. Note: Issue C.C. by tomorrow. (B/o.) KL/VA
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY
WRIT PETITION No.157 of 2011
Date: 12th January, 2011
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner can continue the dealership during the pendency of the appeal.
Y. Ramanjaneyulu
The Joint Collector & Addl. & District Magistrate, Anantapur
G.V. SEETHAPATHY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
