Disposed

Kamisetty Yogamma W/o. Venkata Subbaiah, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC15 Oct 2012WP/31213/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the illegal denial of essential commodities allotment to the petitioner's fair price shops. The Court held that since a suspension order was served, no mandamus could be issued to permit functioning as a dealer. However, it directed the respondents to complete the pending enquiry and pass a final order within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent to complete enquiry and pass a final order within two months, allowing opportunity of hearing.

Kamisetty Yogamma W/o. Venkata Subbaiah, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh — Telangana HC (2012) — LawSathi Research

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.31213 of 2012

¶2

Dated 1 5 th October, 2012

¶3

Between:

¶4

Kamisetty Yogamma

¶5

Petitioner

¶6

and

¶7

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its District Collector (CS Wing), Prakasam District and others

¶8

…Respondents

¶9

Counsel for the petitioner: Smt.P.Radhika Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies

¶10

The Court made the following:

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not allotting essential commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop bearing No.11 and also in-charge shop bearing No.5 as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to respondent No.3 to allot essential commodities to both the shops.

¶13

The petitioner’s fair price shop was inspected by the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Giddalur, and the staff of the Tahasildar, Giddalur on 21.12.2010 and found variations in the essential commodities. Proceedings under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) were initiated. After enquiry, the Collector (CS), Prakasam District, passed order, dated 01.04.2012, under Section 6A of the Act ordering confiscation of the entire seized stocks or their value to the Government. The petitioner pleaded that the appeal filed by her under Section 6C of the Act is pending before the criminal Court.

¶14

The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that even

¶15

though her authorization has not been suspended or cancelled so far, she is not being supplied with the essential commodities both in respect of shop bearing No.11 for which she holds permanent authorization and for shop No.5 for which she is in-charge.

¶16

The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies who took time for instructions on 05.10.2012, has stated today that on 31.12.2010, the petitioner’s authorization was suspended and the same was served on 13.01.2011. He submitted that in view of suspension of her authorization, the petitioner was not supplied with the essential commodities.

¶17

Smt.P.Radhika, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that so far her client has not received the suspension order.

¶18

The question whether the petitioner has received the order of suspension or not is not very much relevant at this stage because substantial time has elapsed from the time the respondents have discontinued supply of essential commodities to both the fair price shops in respect of which the petitioner was distributing the essential commodities. In the light of the submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader that an order of suspension was passed on 31.12.2010, no mandamus can be issued to respondent No.3 to permit the petitioner to function as dealer till completion of the enquiry and passing of a final order.

¶19

However, I do not find any justification for respondent No.3 in keeping the enquiry pending even though nearly two years had elapsed from the time of initiation of disciplinary proceedings. Hence, respondent No.3 is directed to complete the enquiry and pass a final order after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶20

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶21

As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.39792 of 2012 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶22

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶23

15^th October, 2012 VGB

Kamisetty Yogamma W/o. Venkata Subbaiah, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamisetty Yogamma W/o. Venkata Subbaiah, v. The Government 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

Mohammad Yousf, Vs The Chief Executive Officer

S.Ramachandra Reddy Vs The Commissioner for Cooperation/Registrar of

Professor S.K. Sood Vs National Council of Educational Research and Training

M .Subba Lakshmi Vs The Government of A.P

K.B.K. Educational Society Vs National Council for Teacher Education

U. Srinivasulu S/o. Peda Venkata Ramudu, Vs The Forest Section Officer