Dismissed

G. Malikarjuna Reddy v. The Joint Collector, (Civil Supplies), Krishna District

Telangana HC17 Mar 2011WP/4539/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two writ petitions filed by licensed kerosene hawkers challenging the allotment of kerosene to fair price shop dealers as illegal. The court observed that petitioners continued to receive substantial allocations and dismissed the writs as lacking merit. Related Miscellaneous Petitions were dismissed as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions dismissed as infructuous, along with connected Miscellaneous Petitions.

G. Malikarjuna Reddy Vs The Joint… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

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

¶2

WRIT PETITION Nos.4539 and 4556 of 2011

¶3

Date:17.03.2011

¶4

Between:

¶5

G.Malikarjuna Reddy and others

¶6

..... Petitioners

¶7

AND

¶8

The Joint Collector, Krishna District and another

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Aravind Kumar

¶11

Counsel for Respondents: Government Pleader for Civil Supplies

¶12

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER:

¶13

These two writ petitions are filed for issue of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in allotting kerosene through fair price shop dealers as illegal and unconstitutional. The petitioners sought for setting aside the proceedings dated 18.02.2011 and 14.02.2011 of respondent No.2, whereby such allotment was made in favour of the fair price shop dealers.

¶14

I have heard Sri Aravind Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.

¶15

The petitioners are kerosene hawkers, who are licensed to distribute kerosene to cardholders. Their main grievance ventilated in these writ petitions is that by proceedings dated 14.02.2011 and 18.02.2011, respondent No.2 has allocated certain quantities of kerosene to the existing fair price shop dealers. In para 4 of the

¶16

amended writ affidavits, it is stated as under:

¶17

“It is humbly submitted that while the matter stood thus, recently the Government has taken a decision to supply the kerosene through the ration shops. That by virtue of this decision all the petitioners herein will became unemployees and their life will become starvation, as that of this decision taken by the Government against the petitioners are illegal and arbitrary.”

¶18

The petitioners have, however, filed the purported proceedings dated 18.02.2011 and 14.02.2011 of respondent No.2, a perusal of which would show that while substantial quantities of kerosene are allotted to the petitioners, some quantities were also allotted to the fair price shop dealers. For instance, in case of petitioner No.3 in W.P.No.4539 of 2011, he was allotted 1366 liters of kerosene oil, while K.Mohana Rao, fair price shop dealer of the same village was allotted 212 liters of kerosene oil. Similarly, in case of petitioner No.9 in W.P.No.4539 of 2011, 912 liters of kerosene oil was allotted to him, while 40 liters of kerosene was allotted to Y.Edukondalu, fair price shop dealer of the same Village. This would falsify the plea of the petitioners referred to above that the recent decision taken by the Government to supply kerosene through ration shops will render them unemployed.

¶19

At the hearing, the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies stated that as per the current policy of the Government, all essential commodities are proposed to be sold under one roof and that the kerosene hawkers system will be done away with in a phased manner by giving preference to them in appointment as fair price shop dealers as and when such vacancies arise. He also stated that in furtherance of this policy, the Government has decided to attach new ration cards to the fair price shop dealers for distribution of kerosene while continuing to allot kerosene oil to the hawkers in respect of the pre-existing ration cards. He has further stated that in pursuance of the earlier orders of this Court, the hawkers of kerosene oil are being continued till such time as their cases are considered for appointment

¶20

as fair price shop dealers in the vacancies that will be arising in future.

¶21

Having considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the writ petitions are filed more on apprehension than with any realistic grievance. As noted above, substantial quantities of kerosene oil are being allotted to the petitioners, while negligible quantities are being given to the fair price shop dealers.

¶22

For the aforementioned reasons, I do not find any merit in these Writ Petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed.

¶23

As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petitions, W.P.M.P.No.5620 of 2011 in W.P.No.4539 of 2011 and W.P.M.P.No.5639 of 2011 in W.P.No.4556 of 2011 are dismissed as infructuous.

¶24

________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 17^th March, 2011 GHN

G. Malikarjuna Reddy v. The Joint Collector, (Civil Supplies), Krishna District

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Malikarjuna Reddy v. The Joint Collector, (Civil Supplies), Krishna District

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

B.Vijaya Lakshmi Vs State of a.P., represented by its Secretary

Bharat Food Products, a Partnership Firm, Siricilla Road, Vs District Collector

M/s.Devatha Samkshema Sangham Vs TheSuperintending Engineer

K.Balaswamy, Vs The District Collector

Smt.Sujatha Vs Thirupathi Urban Development Authority

Grampanchayath, P. Siddarampuram, Rep. by its Vs The Tahsildar, Atmakur