Dismissed

Lakshmi Ganapathi Mahila Sakthi Society, Rep. by its v. The Joint Collector, East Godavari District

Telangana HC7 Dec 2012WP/3365/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Writ Petition challenged the appointment of a male dealer to a Fair Price Shop as illegal under guidelines restricting dealers to unemployed persons or women's groups. The Acting Chief Justice dismissed the petition, holding that since the appointee was already running the shop and over six years had passed, it would be useless to interfere.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition to set aside the order appointing respondent No.4 as fair price shop dealer was dismissed with no costs.

Lakshmi Ganapathi Mahila Sakthi Society… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.3365 OF 2007

¶3

DATED:7.12.2012

¶4

Between: Lakshmi Ganapathi Mahila Sakthi Society Rep. by its President Smt. Bokka Nagamani D.No.3-57 Puretivari Cheruvu Hamlet of Ravulapadu Ravulapalem Mandal East Godavari District … Petitioner And The Joint Collector East Godavari District Kakinada and others … Respondents

¶5

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.3365 OF 2007

¶7

ORDER:

¶8

This writ petition is filed to declare the proceedings in D.Dis No.H/2925/2006, dt.30.12.2006 issued by respondent No.2, in appointing respondent No.4 as dealer to fair price shop No.20A of Ravulapadu (Puretivari Cheruvu) Village, Ravulapalem Mandal, East Godavari District, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to G.O. Ms. No.53, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (C.B.I.) Department, dt.6.10.2003, and consequently to set aside the said proceedings.

¶9

Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 issued a notification dt.20.11.2006 stating that a new fair price shop No.20A is being established by bifurcating the existing shop No.20 situated at Ravulapadu Ravulapalem Mandal, as per the directions of the District Collector, East Godavari District, vide Ref.V9/C5/636/05, dt.5.11.2006. By the said notice, applications were also invited from the eligible persons belonging to backward classes for appointment of dealer for said fair price shop No.20A on permanent basis, as per G.O. Rt. No.951 (Food and Agriculture) CS2/Lr. Dated 16.5.1988 and the Government Memo No.26714/CS2/90 dated 3.5.1990 and G.O. Ms. No.19 (Food and Agriculture)/CS2, dated 8.1.1990.

¶10

By G.O. Ms. No.53, dt.6.10.2003, government issued certain guidelines for selection and appointment of fair price shop dealers under the A.P. Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001. The eligibility criteria has been mentioned in Clause 4 of the guidelines contained in the said G.O., which reads as under:

¶11

“4. ELIGIBILITY:

¶12

Keeping in view the growing unemployment, only unemployed persons or from Registered Rural area groups of Women’s voluntary consumer organizations (which have only women as members) or Women’s theft group like ‘Podupu Lakshmi’ Cooperative Societies for exclusively by women shall be eligible for appointment as fair price shop dealers.”

¶13

According to the writ petitioner, respondent No.4 cannot come within the purview of the eligibility criteria since he could not have the requisite qualification as has been stated in the guidelines. Therefore, the order passed by the authorities in the matter appointing respondent No.4 as fair price shop dealer should be set aside.

¶14

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

I have further perused the notification, which was issued by respondent No.2 on 20.11.2006. The qualifications required for appointment of fair price shop dealers are mentioned in the said notification and the same read as under:

¶16

“QUALIFICATIONS:

¶17

1. One should be resident of the village/municipality where the fair price shop is situated.

¶18

2. One should read and write Telugu language. One should complete 18 years. One should not cross 40 years. One should pass 10^th class.

¶19

3. Dealer selected shall not be resigned within 5 years.”

¶20

On enquiry, I have been informed by learned counsel for the respondents that respondent No.4 was already appointed as fair shop dealer and he is running the fair price shop No.20A. It appears to me that along with the writ petition, the petitioner also filed W.P.M.P. No.4287 of 2007, seeking suspension of the proceedings of respondent No.2, dt.30.12.2006 whereunder he appointed respondent No.4 as dealer of the said fair price shop. This Court while admitting the writ petition, dismissed the W.P.M.P., on 19.2.2007. It appears to me that after lapse of six years almost, from the date of appointment of

¶21

said respondent No.4 as fair price shop dealer of the shop in question, it would be useless to interfere in the matter, since it is submitted on behalf of the respondents at the bar that the appointment of respondent No.4 has been made in terms of the notification, which specifically prescribe qualification and respondent No.4 satisfies such eligibility criteria mentioned in the said notification.

¶22

In view of that, in my opinion, this writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

¶23

__________________________ PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ

¶24

7.12.2012 bnr

Lakshmi Ganapathi Mahila Sakthi Society, Rep. by its v. The Joint Collector, East Godavari District

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakshmi Ganapathi Mahila Sakthi Society, Rep. by its v. The Joint Collector, East Godavari District

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.Eci Engineering and Construction Co.Ltd., Vs a.P.Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd.

Mrs. Nafees Sultana, Vs M/s M3 Media Pvt. Ltd.

Karshak Vidya Prishad, repby Secretary N. Raja Babu Vs Committee for Fee Fixation of Fe Structurer in Private Un-

M/S. Tarakarama Timbers, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P.Habeeb Khan Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by

M/s. Sri Rama Industries, Vs The Government of a.P., rep. by its Secretary Food and