Partly allowed

Mother Theresa Dwacra Group, rep.by v. STate of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by Secretary

Telangana HC6 Dec 2012WP/25097/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court allowed the Writ Petition of a DWACRA group challenging the acceptance of their resignation as a fair price shop dealer. The Court held that since the resignation was withdrawn before acceptance, there was no justification for the order, and quashed the proceedings accepting the resignation.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings of the fourth respondent vide Pro.No.B/2950/2006, dated 22.08.2011 are hereby quashed.

Mother Theresa Dwacra Group, rep.by Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25097 of 2011 ORDER:

¶2

In this Writ Petition, the petitioner-a DWACRA group has questioned the action of the fourth respondent in issuing proceedings vide Pro.No.B/2950/2006, dated 22.08.2011, whereunder the resignation of the petitioner-DWACRA group for holding the authorization in respect of the fair price shop located in Kammarpalli Village, Dubbak Mandal, Siddipet Divisin, Medak District, is accepted.

¶3

It is the case of the petitioner that as per the guidelines notified by the respondents, while granting authorization for the fair price shops, DWACRA groups should be given preference. The petitioner-DWACRA group is given authorization to run fair price shop in Kammarpalli Village several years back and the same is being renewed from time to time. It is further stated that on 20.08.2011, the petitioner-DWACRA group addressed a resignation letter to the Tahsildar, Dubbak Mandal, requesting to cancel the fair price shop dealership, but after discussions having realizing the mistake, on the very same day, they have made a representation to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Siddipet, Medak District-the fourth respondent herein requesting to permit the petitioner-DWACRA group to withdraw their earlier resignation and continue it as a fair price shop dealer in the village in question. The grievance of the petitioner-DWACRA group is that in spite of such a representation, the impugned order is passed by the fourth respondent accepting the resignation and further directed the Tahsildar, Dubbak Mandal, to make alternative arrangements to avoid inconvenience to the card holders.

¶4

On behalf of the respondents, a detailed counter-

¶5

affidavit is filed.

¶6

Ms D.Pramada, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that when the resignation tendered by the petitioner was withdrawn even before its acceptance, there is no justification on the part of the fourth respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer in passing the impugned order.

¶7

It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents that the petitioner-DWACRA group was appointed as a fair price shop dealer on a temporary basis and as such, it is not entitled for continuance as a dealer indefinitely.

¶8

On 07.09.2011, this Court while admitting the Writ Petition passed interim order directing the respondents to continue the petitioner as a fair price shop dealer pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶9

Whether the petitioner is appointed on temporary basis or permanent basis is not the subject matter of this Writ Petition. Even as per the respondents, there are no allegations of irregularities or illegalities being committed by the petitioner-DWACRA group. When the petitioner-DWACRA group is an authorized fair price shop dealer for distribution of the essential commodities and that, when a representation is made by the petitioner-DWACRA group seeking to withdraw the resignation before its acceptance, there is no reason for the fourth respondent in accepting the resignation and passing the impugned order. It is also to be noticed that pursuant to the interim order, dated 07.09.2011, passed by this Court, the petitioner-DWACRA group is continuing as a fair price shop dealer as on today.

¶10

It is well settled that the resignation tendered can be withdrawn at any time before its acceptance.

¶11

For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed and the proceedings of the fourth respondent

¶12

vide Pro.No.B/2950/ 2006, dated 22.08.2011, are hereby quashed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶13

_______________________ JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶14

06^th December 2012 DR

Mother Theresa Dwacra Group, rep.by v. STate of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mother Theresa Dwacra Group, rep.by v. STate of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by Secretary

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

M/s Jairaj Ispat Limited, Vs The Central Power Distribution Company of

U. Naga Raju Vs The District Collector.

M/s Minopharm Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Managing Director

Guntur Venkateswarlu Vs Joint Collector

G. Revathi, Vs A.P.S.R.T.C

Jaddu Jrishna Reddy Vs The Commissioner of Civil Supplies - cum- Ex-officio