Allowed

K. Ramalakshumma v. The District Collector, Kadapa

Telangana HC1 Jul 2011WP/25165/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the petitioner's writ petition, holding that the revisionary authority's order cancelling her food grain shop authorization was cryptic, unreasoned, and violated natural justice. The order was set aside and remitted for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 04.10.2008 set aside; matter remitted to District Collector for fresh consideration within three months.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.25165 of 2008

Between:

K. Ramalakshumma

.... Petitioner

And

The District Collector, Kadapa, Kadapa District & 3 others

¶10

....Respondents

¶11

The Court made the following:

¶12

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.25165 of 2008

¶13

ORDER:

¶14

The petitioner, the Fair Price Shop dealer of Nadimpalle, Hamlet of Araveedu Village, Galivedu Mandal, Cuddapah District, is aggrieved by the order dated 04.10.2008 passed by the District Collector, Cuddapah, confirming the orders dated 08.11.2007 and 05.04.2007 passed by the Joint Collector, Cuddapah and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Cuddapah, respectively, whereby her authorisation stood cancelled. The complaint of the petitioner is that the impugned order is cryptic and unreasoned, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

¶15

2. Perusal of the order dated 04.10.2008 reflects that

¶16

the revisionary authority merely extracted the facts of the case and the grounds urged by the petitioner and baldly concluded that after perusing the records and hearing arguments, it was clear that the dealer had committed irregularities for which she was removed. The revisionary authority further stated that he found no reasons to interfere with the orders of the Joint Collector, Cuddapah, and accordingly dismissed the revision petition.

¶17

3. The District Collector, Cuddapah, while discharging quasi-judicial functions as a revisionary authority is expected to apply his mind to the case before him and pass a reasoned order. Reason, as pointed out by the Supreme Court in RAJ KISHORE JHA VS. STATE OF BIHA R^[1] , is the heart beat of every conclusion and without the same it becomes lifeless. As the petitioner had specifically raised various grounds in support of her attack against the orders cancelling her authorisation, the revisionary authority ought to have considered the same on merits and given his reasons for holding one way or the other. When the petitioner specifically urged that the principles of natural justice were violated in her case, the revisionary authority had to examine the record for ascertaining the same, which he failed to do.

¶18

4. The order dated 04.10.2008 passed by the District Collector, Cuddapah, is accordingly set aside and the matter is remitted to the said authority for consideration of the petitioner’s revision afresh. It shall be open to the petitioner to urge additional grounds in support of her plea that there was violation of the principles of natural justice in the procedure followed by the authorities below while dealing with her case. The District Collector, Cuddapah, shall allow the petitioner an opportunity to raise such additional grounds, consider the petitioner’s revision

¶19

on merits and pass reasoned orders therein within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶20

5. The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Miscellaneous Petitions filed in this Writ Petition shall stand dismissed as infructuous in consequence. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶21

_________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J

¶22

Date: 1^st July, 2011 KL

¶23

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.25165 of 2008

¶25

Date: 1^st July, 2011

¶26

¶27

[1] 2003 (11) SCC 519

K. Ramalakshumma v. The District Collector, Kadapa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Ramalakshumma v. The District Collector, Kadapa

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

Smt.Marada Lakshmi Vs The District Collector (Cs), Vizianagaram District

Smt.Ch.Kamasamma Vs Smt.G.Komuramma

The Nellore District Co-operative Marketing Society Vs The District Collector

Southern Timbers, rep by Proprietor S.K.Soundara Rajan Vs The Conservator of Forests

K.Hemalata Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

P.V. Muralidhar Raju, Vs Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams