Allowed

Ch.Sugunakar Rao v. The Joint Collector (Cs)

Telangana HC12 Jan 2011WP/243/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court declared illegal the Revenue Divisional Officer's suspension of a fair price shop dealership initiated without waiting for the submission of the petitioner's explanation under a show cause notice. The suspension order was set aside, and the shop was allowed to operate pending final orders.

What did the court decide?

Impugned proceedings suspending authorization set aside; shop allowed to operate; second respondent directed to consider explanation on merits within four weeks.

Ch.Sugunakar Rao Vs The Joint Collector (Cs) — Consumer Protection | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.243 of 2011

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the writ of mandamus declaring the action of second respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Jagtial, Karimnagar District, issuing the show cause notice in Proceedings No.G/3589/2010, dated 04.12.2010, and suspending the authorisation of the petitioner’s fair price shop dealership No.1948 of Kandlapally village, Jagtial Mandal, Karimnagar District, without waiting for the expiry of the period for submission of explanation, as illegal.

¶5

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the Civil Supplies. Perused the records.

¶6

3. The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer in respect of Shop No. 1948 of Kandlapally Village. By interim proceedings No. No.G/3589/2010, dated 04.12.2010, the second respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Jagtial, Karimnagar District, issued a show cause notice calling for the explanation of the petitioner on the report of the Deputy Tahsildar, Metpally, Karimnagar District, wherein it is alleged that the petitioner was acting contrary to the terms and he is diverting the essential commodities to black market. According to the petitioner, after receiving the said show cause notice, he submitted a detailed explanation on 10.12.2010 denying the allegations. The grievance of the petitioner is that without considering the explanation, the second respondent has, on the very same day i.e., on 04.12.2010, issued proceedings suspending the authorisation of the dealership. The show cause notice was issued on 04.12.2010 wherein the petitioner was

¶7

granted seven days time for submitting his explanation. However, without waiting for the expiry of the said period of seven days, the second respondent, on the same day i.e., on 04.12.2010 issued impugned proceedings suspending the authorisation of the dealership temporarily. Subsequently, on 10.12.2010, the petitioner submitted his explanation.

¶8

4. In as much as the impugned proceedings suspending the authorisation of the dealership were issued on the same day, i.e., on 04.12.2010, on which date the show cause notice was issued and without waiting for the expiry of the time given by the second respondent for submission of his explanation, it is considered that the said impugned proceedings are unsustainable and they are liable to be set aside. As the petitioner has already submitted his explanation on 04.12.2010 to the show cause notice, the second respondent is directed to consider the same on its merits and pass final orders thereon within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, the petitioner shall be allowed to operate the fair price shop dealership.

¶9

5. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶10

____________________ (G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J)

¶11

Date: 12^th January, 2011.

¶12

Note: Issue C.C. in one week (B/o.) KL/VA

¶13

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY

¶14

WRIT PETITION No.243 of 2011

¶15

Date: 12^th January, 2011

¶16

KL/VA

Ch.Sugunakar Rao v. The Joint Collector (Cs)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ch.Sugunakar Rao v. The Joint Collector (Cs)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Swarajya Lakshmi Vs Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd.

Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao Vs Mr. S. Devanand

Smt. Mehmooda Begum, Vs Smt. Abida Parveen

E.Rajam Vs TheJoint Collector (Cs)

Y. Ramanjaneyulu Vs The Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate

C.Vijaya Rama Rao Vs Mohammed Abdul Hammed