Allowed

G. Vanaja v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal

Telangana HC22 Mar 2011WP/7385/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions filed by fair price shop dealers challenging a memo returning their revision petitions on a technical ground of incorrect designation. The High Court quashed the memo, directed acceptance of petitions, and stayed vacancy filling.

What did the court decide?

Impugned memos quashed; authority directed to accept petitions and dispose on merits; vacancy filling stayed pending disposal.

G. Vanaja Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

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

¶2

WRIT PETITION Nos.7369, 7384, 7385, 7386, 7387, 7423 and 7424 of 2011

¶3

Dated 22.03.2011

¶4

Between:

¶5

Ch. Anuradha and others

¶6

…Petitioners

¶7

And

¶8

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Hyderabad and others

¶9

…Respondents

¶10

Counsel for the petitioners: Sri V. Ravi Kiran Rao

¶11

Counsel for respondents: Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies

¶12

The Court made the following:

¶13

COMMON ORDER:

¶14

This batch of writ petitions is filed against separate but similar memos dated 24.01.2011 (09.02.2011 in W.P.No.7386 of 2011) of respondent No.2, whereby he has directed the petitioners to rectify the defects and file fresh revision petitions within a period of three days from the date of receipt of the said memos.

¶15

I have heard Sri V. Ravi Kiran Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.

¶16

The petitioners are fair price shop dealers, whose authorizations were terminated on the ground that they have allowed their shops to be run by benamis. When writ petitions were filed questioning those termination orders, this Court, while declining to interfere with the orders of termination on account of availability of alternative remedies, permitted the petitioners to avail such remedies. Accordingly, the petitioners filed appeals before respondent No.3, who dismissed the same. Assailing the said orders, the petitioners approached respondent No.2, by way of revision petitions. By the impugned memos, respondent No.2 returned the revision petitions on the sole ground that in the revision petitions, respondent No.2 was described as Collector(Civil Supplies) instead of showing him as District Collector. It is the pleaded case of the petitioners that due to the strike of the Advocates, the fact of return of the revision petitions has not come to their notice and that by the time they were aware of the same, the period of three days given for filing fresh revision petitions has expired. It is their further pleaded case that in the

¶17

meantime, respondent No.5 on the instructions of respondent No.2 addressed respondent No.4 asking him to proceed with filling up of the fair price shop vacancies.

¶18

As noted above, the only ground on which respondent No.2 has returned the revision petitions is that the same were addressed to the Collector (Civil Supplies), Nizamabad instead of to the District Collector. In my opinion, respondent No.2 has made a hypo-technical approach in rejecting the revision petitions. Even if he was not correctly described, he should have directed the petitioners to correct the description. Instead, he returned the revision petitions with liberty to the petitioners file fresh revision petitions within a period of three days. A perusal of the revision petitions filed by the petitioners would show that even the reason assigned by respondent No.2 is incorrect. The petitioners have described respondent No.2 as “District Collector (Civil Supplies), Nizamabad” and not as “Collector (Civil Supplies)”. Except that the words “Civil Supplies” are suffixed after the words “District Collector”, I do not find anything wrong in the description of respondent No.2 in the revision petitions. The rejection of the revision petitions on such a flippant ground cannot be sustained.

¶19

Accordingly, the impugned memos dated 24.01.2011 (09.02.2011 in W.P.No.7386 of 2011) of respondent No.2 are quashed. Respondent No.2 is directed to receive back the revision petitions, if they are resubmitted before him within a period of two weeks from today. He shall then dispose of the same on merits without raising such impudent objections. In the meantime, the respondents are directed not to initiate any steps for filling up the fair price shop vacancies caused on account of termination of the petitioners’ authorizations.

¶20

Subject to the above directions, these Writ Petitions are allowed.

¶21

As a sequel to allowing these writ petitions, W.P.M.P.No.9186 of 2011 in W.P.No.7369 of 2011, W.P.M.P.No.9201 of 2011 in W.P.No.7384 of 2011, W.P.M.P.No.9202 of 2011 in W.P.No.7385 of 2011, W.P.M.P.No.9203 of 2011 in W.P.No.7386 of 2011, W.P.M.P.No.9204 of 2011 in W.P.No.7387 of 2011, W.P.M.P.No.9239 of 2011 in W.P.No.7423 of 2011 and W.P.M.P.No.9240 of 2011 in W.P.No.7424 of 2011 are disposed of as infructuous.

¶22

________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶23

22^nd March, 2011 GHN

G. Vanaja v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Vanaja v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal

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.Srihari Rao, Vs The Government of A.P.

Tallapudi Joga Rao, Vs The District Collector

D. Govind Vs The District Collector

Northern Power Distribution Corporation Electrical and Vs The Northern Power Distribution Company Limited

Bathuva-I Water Users Association (Borapothuvani Cheruvu) Vs District Collector, (Panchayat Raj)

smt. Nilofer Fatima Vs The Central Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh