Disposed

Taddi Nagalakshmi v. The Revenue Divisonal Officer

Telangana HC18 Dec 2012WP/30957/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the arbitrary replacement of the petitioner as a temporary fair price shop dealer. No valid reason was cited for the replacement. The Court directed respondents to notify the permanent vacancy and fill it according to rules, while continuing the existing arrangement temporarily. Both petitioner and new respondent can apply for the permanent post.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to notify the vacancy on a permanent basis, fill it per rules, and continue the existing arrangement until permanent appointment.

Taddi Nagalakshmi Vs The Revenue Divisonal… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.30957 of 2012

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents 1 and 2.

¶5

This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the proceedings in Rc.No.1626/2012/M, dated 21.08.2012, issued by the 1^st respondent appointing the 3^rd respondent as temporary dealer for fair price shop No.52 of Vizianagaram Town and Mandal, Vizianagaram District, and the consequential proceedings in R.C.No.1244/2012/A, dated 14.09.2012, issued by the 2^nd respondent directing the petitioner to handover the charge to the 3^rd respondent, as illegal and arbitrary and, consequently, to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to continue the petitioner as temporary dealer for the said shop.

¶6

This Court, while issuing notice before admission, by order dated 05.10.2012, suspended the proceedings of the 1^st respondent.

¶7

A perusal of the impugned proceedings would show that the authorization of the petitioner is not renewed beyond the period of three months, and no other reason is indicated for replacing the petitioner with the 3^rd respondent. In absence of any allegation and in view of the interim order passed by this Court, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to notify the vacancy on permanent basis and fill up the same, in accordance with the rules and the guidelines issued by the Government, to make the permanent appointment of fair price shop dealer. Till such appointment is made on permanent basis, the existing arrangement as on today shall be continued. It is made clear that when a notification is issued for filling-up the vacancy of fair price shop

¶8

dealer, it is open for the petitioner as well as the 3^rd respondent to apply for the same and it is also open for the appointing authority to consider their claims along with the other claimants, if any, for appointment of fair price shop dealer on permanent basis.

¶9

Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶10

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed along with the writ petition shall stand disposed of.

¶11

________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 18^th December, 2012 cbs

¶12

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶13

WRIT PETITION No.30957 of 2012

¶14

18^th December, 2012

¶15

cbs

Taddi Nagalakshmi v. The Revenue Divisonal Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Taddi Nagalakshmi v. The Revenue Divisonal 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

Dirisala Chalapathi Rao, S/o. Subba Rao, Vs The a.P.Co-operative Tribunal, At Vijayawada, Krishna

Smt. Mambakam Razia Murthy, Vs Narra Hari Krishna

Sri M.BaI Reddy Vs The Special Commissioner/

B.Maqbool Ahmed, Vs The Divisional Forest Officer

K.R.v.v.Sanyasi Chetty, Vs The District Collector, Visakhapatnam District.

Kuraku Chinna Siddaiah Vs The Superintending Engineer