Disposed

Guntur Venkateswarlu v. Joint Collector

Telangana HC6 Dec 2012WP/25149/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition questioning the validity of proceedings suspending a petitioner's fair price shop authorization. The High Court directed the revenue authority to complete the pending enquiry expeditiously within three months while maintaining the interim suspension of the original order.

What did the court decide?

Directions to complete enquiry within three months and maintain interim suspension of order dated 08.09.2011.

Guntur Venkateswarlu Vs Joint Collector — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25149 of 2011

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This Writ Petition is filed questioning the validity of the proceedings issued by the second respondentRevenue Divisional Officer, Tenali, vide Rc.No.1643/2011-K, dated 19.08.2011.

¶4

The petitioner is appointed as a fair price shop dealer in respect of Shop No.16 of Bapatla Town and Mandal, Guntur District for distribution of essential commodities to the card holders. The fair price shop authorization held by the petitioner is governed by the provisions of the A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008, framed in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. By the impugned proceedings, the fair price shop authorization granted to the petitioner was suspended pending enquiry into the allegations made against him that he has illegally kept BPL cards in his custody and made false entries in the Sales Register and thereby, mis-utilised the subsidized PDS rice for his person gains; and that the BPL cards issued to the eligible poor families are not with the persons concerned and they are in possession of unauthorized persons.

¶5

In the affidavit, filed in support of the Writ Petition, the petitioner disputes the allegations levelled against him. This Court, while admitting the Writ Petition on 08.09.2011, granted interim suspension of the impugned order. Since then, the said interim order passed by this Court continued all along. As regards the allegations made against the petitioner, it is a matter for enquiry by the second respondent.

¶6

As the interim order passed by this Court on 08.09.2011, suspending the impugned proceedings, whereby the authorization of the petitioner was suspended pending enquiry, continued all along and as it is submitted that the enquiry is still pending, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition directing the second respondent to complete the enquiry initiated against the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order Further, it is directed that the order, dated 08.09.2011, passed in W.P.M.P.No.30937 of 2011 shall continue to operate pending passing of the final orders by the second respondent.

¶7

Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶8

_______________________ JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶9

06^th December 2012 DR

Guntur Venkateswarlu v. Joint Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guntur Venkateswarlu v. Joint Collector

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

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

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

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

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