Allowed

P.Ramalakshmi, W/o Laxmana Swamy v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Telangana HC3 Sept 2012WP/27368/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that a fair-price-shop dealer's authorization, suspended by the Tahsildar for up to 90 days, must be restored unless extended by the Appointing Authority (Revenue Divisional Officer). The petitioner was directed to be permitted to function until the final order or the expiry of the extended period.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to be permitted to function as fair-price-shop dealer unless suspension extended by Respondent No.1; petition disposed of; second petition disposed of as infructuous.

P.Ramalakshmi, W/o Laxmana Swamy Vs The Revenue… — Consumer Protection | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy

¶2

Writ Petition No.27368 of 2012

¶3

Date: 03.09.2012

¶4

Between: P. Ramalakshmi … Petitioner And The Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoni, Kurnool District and others … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. M.R. Tagore Counsel for the respondents : The Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies

¶5

The Court made the following :

¶6

Order:

¶7

The petitioner, the fair-price-shop dealer in respect of Shop No.22 of Kunkunur Village, Devanakonda Mandal, Kurnool District, filed this Writ Petition, feeling aggrieved by order dated 12.04.2012 of respondent No.2 whereby he has suspended the petitioner’s authorization pending enquiry.

¶8

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶9

Under Clause 5(7) of the A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008, the Tahsildar is empowered to keep the authorization of a fair-price-shop dealer under suspension for a period not exceeding 90 days and it is only the Revenue Divisional Officer, which is the Appointing Authority, who is empowered to continue the suspension beyond the said period.

¶10

A perusal of the impugned order shows that respondent No.2 has not specified the period for which the petitioner’s authorization is suspended. Even in the absence of any such stipulation, the order of suspension ceases to be in force on the expiry of 90 days from the date of the order. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that without restoring the supplies to her on the expiry of 90 days, respondent No.1 has

¶11

issued show-cause notice dated 25.07.2012 for cancellation of her authorization.

¶12

While respondent No.1 has the power to issue the show-cause notice and take appropriate action for cancellation if he finds that the petitioner has committed irregularities in distribution of the essential commodities, the petitioner cannot be prevented from functioning as fair-priceshop dealer after the expiry of 90 days from the date of the order of the suspension passed by respondent No.2, unless the same was extended by respondent No.1. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are therefore directed to permit the petitioner to function as fair-price-shop dealer, unless respondent No.1 has extended the suspension order and communicated the same to the petitioner before filing of this writ petition, till completion of the enquiry and passing a final order by respondent No.1.

¶13

Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶14

As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.34846 of 2012 is disposed of as infructuous.

¶15

__________________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 3^rd September, 2012 cbs

¶16

The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy

¶17

Writ Petition No.27368 of 2012

¶18

3^rd September, 2012

¶19

cbs

P.Ramalakshmi, W/o Laxmana Swamy v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Ramalakshmi, W/o Laxmana Swamy v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

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 Sri Ram Agri Tech, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Sri. K. Balakrishna, Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Road

M/s. Avanti Feeds Ltd. Vs Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission

M/s. G.K. Organic Life Sciences Vs The Commissioner and Director of Agriculture

M/s. Gene 7 Biotech Private Limited Vs The Commissioner and Director of Agriculture

M/s. Oil Palm Developers and Processors Association Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh