Allowed

K. Hayathunnissa Begum v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC24 Jan 2011WP/755/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court declined to set aside the suspension of a fair price shop authorization, holding the case unfit for interference midway. However, directing the District Collector to complete the enquiry and pass a final order within one month due to the petitioner's explanation being pending since six months.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.2 directed to complete the enquiry within one month and pass a final order.

K. Hayathunnissa Begum Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

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

¶2

Writ Petition No.755 of 2011

¶3

DT.24.01.2011

¶4

Between:

¶5

K.Hayathunnissa Begum

¶6

… Petitioner

¶7

And

¶8

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its District Collector, Y.S.R.District, Kadapa and others

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvori

¶11

Counsel for respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies

¶12

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶13

ORDER:

¶14

This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside order, dated 01.07.2010, of respondent No.2, whereby he has placed the petitioner’s fair price shop authorization in respect of Shop No.98, Chemmumiahpet under suspension.

¶15

At the hearing, Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvori, learned counsel for the petitioner, stated that respondent No.2 has resorted to suspending the petitioner’s authorization on vague and flimsy grounds. He further submitted that though his client has submitted her explanation as far back as 25.07.2010, no final order has been passed so far.

¶16

Since the enquiry into the charges levelled against the petitioner is pending, I do not find it appropriate to pronounce on the nature of the charges, on which, the petitioner’s authorization was suspended. Since more than six months had elapsed from the time of suspension of the petitioner’s authorization, it is not a fit case for interference at this stage. However, I find justification in the grievance of the petitioner that though she has filed her explanation nearly six months back, respondent No.2 has not completed the enquiry and passed a final order.

¶17

Therefore, respondent No.2 is directed to pass a final order, after completing the enquiry, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner.

¶18

Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.924 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J)

¶19

Date: 24.01.2011 VGB

K. Hayathunnissa Begum v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Hayathunnissa Begum v. The State 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

Sri Khaja Fiazuddin Vs The Government of A.P. rep. by The Secretary

Chanduri Ramadevi Vs The Collector (Cs)

Sri Sai Garden and Function Hall, Rangappur Village, Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation, Hyderabad

D.Neetha, Vs The Government of Andhra pradesh

Sri Radhakrishna Employees Cooperative Housing Vs The Deputy Registrar / Divisional Cooperative Officer

Smt.Chada Ramulamma Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer