Disposed

Sri M.BaI Reddy v. The Special Commissioner/

Telangana HC17 Dec 2012WP/35782/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the notification for filling vacant fair price shops created in 2012, the judgment refused to interfere with the selection process but directed the appellate authority to dispose of pending appeals against the 2009 shop bifurcation order within four weeks, keeping future appointments subject to appellate outcomes.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 1st respondent to dispose of pending appeals within four weeks; Writ Petition disposed of.

Sri M.BaI Reddy Vs The Special Commissioner/ — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

Writ Petition No.35782 of 2012

¶3

Date: December 17, 2012

¶4

Between:

¶5

M. Bal Reddy and others

¶6

… Petitioners

¶7

And

¶8

The Special Commissioner/Director of Civil Supplies Dept., Govt. of A.P., Office at Civil Supplies Bhavan, Somajiguda, Hyderabad and others

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

Order:

¶11

Petitioners are fair price shop dealers in Ranga Reddy District and their shops are located in Rajendranagar, Shankarpally, Shamshabad and Moinabad mandals. Due to increase in IRIS-based ration cards, respondents have taken up rationalization of fair price shops in rural areas. In Rajendranagar mandal, there are 15 existing shops and further 10 new shops are proposed to be created. Similarly, in Shankarpally, Shamshabad and Moinabad mandals, there are 31, 36 and 31 existing shops and further 4, 7 and 4 new

¶12

shops are proposed to be created, respectively. Such proposals were approved by the District Collector, Ranga Reddy, vide order dated 17.08.2009 passed in Proc.No.A5/812/2007. As against the same, petitioners filed appeals before the 1^st respondent-Special Commissioner and the same are stated to be pending. As things stood thus, to fill up vacancies of newly created shops, impugned notification dated 29.10.2012, vide S.No.E/5886/2012 has been issued inviting applications. It is the grievance of the petitioners that there is no reason for creating new shops and the same is not in accordance with the guidelines framed in this regard. It is stated that, inasmuch as the enquiries, which were pending in respect of bogus ration cards, are concluded, there is no reason to proceed with the impugned notification for filling up the vacancies of newly created shops.

¶13

It is to be noticed that order dated 17.08.2009 was passed by the District Collector, Ranga Reddy, vide Proc.No.A5/812/2007, for bifurcation of fair price shops in the mandals in question. If any appeals are filed against the order dated 17.08.2009, it is open to the appellate authority to examine the validity of the said order, but the same is no ground to interfere with the impugned

¶14

notification dated 29.10.2012 calling for applications to fill up vacancies of newly created shops. Though order, bifurcating the shops has been passed as early as on 17.08.2009, at no point of time petitioners approached this Court, but only after notification dated 29.10.2012 has been issued, they filed this writ petition to stall the selection process in respect of the newly created shops. Inasmuch as it is sated that written examination and interviews are held in pursuance of the impugned notification dated 29.10.2012, I do not find any ground to interfere with the same. However, as it is stated that the appeals filed by the petitioners against the order dated 17.08.2009 are stated to be pending consideration, there shall be a direction to the 1^st respondent-appellate authority to dispose of the said appeals as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. It is made clear that if any appointments are made in pursuance of the impugned notification dated 29.10.2012, the same will be subject to orders to be passed by the appellate authority in the appeals.

¶15

Subject to the above observations and directions, writ petition is disposed of. Consequently, WPMP No.45482 of 2012 also stands disposed of. No order as

¶16

to costs.

¶17

R.SUBHASH REDDY, J

¶18

December 17, 2012 MRR

Sri M.BaI Reddy v. The Special Commissioner/

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M.BaI Reddy v. The Special Commissioner/

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

Smt. J. Premavathi Vs The Tahsildar

Thallapalli. Ravinder Vs The Revenue Divisional officer

M. Lakshmanna Vs The District Collector (Civil supplies)

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

David Memorial Education Society (Regn No. 880 of 1980) Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh