Dismissed

C. Sujatha v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC19 Jan 2011WP/326/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Writ Petition No.326 of 2011, the High Court dismissed the petition challenging the reinstatement of a fair price shop dealer with penalty, holding that the order was appealable and within the disciplinary authority's jurisdiction, dismissing the petition subject to liberty to appeal.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with liberty to appeal; WPMP No.416 of 2011 dismissed.

C. Sujatha Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.326 of 2011

¶6

Between: C. Sujatha AND The Govt., of A.P., rep., by District Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District & others.

¶7

..... Petitioner

¶8

.....Respondents

¶9

Counsel for the petitioner : Sri S.V. Muni Reddy Counsel for respondents 1-3: AGP for Civil Supplies

¶10

The Court made the following :

¶11

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.326 of 2011

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside order dated 14.12.2010 of respondent No.2, whereby he has reinstated respondent No.4 as fair price shop dealer on imposition of certain penalty.

¶14

At the hearing, Sri S.V. Muni Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, has not disputed that the impugned order is amenable to remedy of appeal. However, he submitted that the said order passed by respondent No.2 is without jurisdiction.

¶15

In my opinion, respondent No.2, being the disciplinary authority, is vested with the jurisdiction to pass a final order after completion of enquiry. Therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned order is without jurisdiction. However, whether respondent No.2 is vested with the power to order reinstatement of respondent No.4 on payment of penalty, having found that he is guilty of misconduct, is a question, which can be raised by the petitioner before the appellate authority. If such an issue is raised, the appellate authority shall decide the same along with other issues that may be raised by the petitioner in questioning the validity of the impugned order.

¶16

Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal.

¶17

As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.416 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed.

¶18

____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 19.01.2011 ES

C. Sujatha v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C. Sujatha v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

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

Water Health India Private Limited Vs Vetlapalem Grama Panchayat

Nalla Prabhakar Vs The Grampanchayat Mothkur Village

Palle Peeraiah Vs The District Collector

V.Varadhi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mohd. Mumtaz Ali Vs The District Panchayat Officer

Bonasi Sankarappa Vs The State of Andhra PRadesh, Rep. by its