Dismissed

Smt.B.Chennamma v. The District Collector,(Civil Supplies)

Telangana HC7 Dec 2012WP/37737/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding the bifurcation of a fair price shop, the High Court held that since no final decision had been taken on the proposal and the District Supply Officer had directed verification due to guideline inconsistencies, no interference was necessary at that stage. The petition was disposed of with directions to exhaust administrative remedies.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to raise objections before the Revenue Divisional Officer if any, before acting in opposition to the fresh proposals.; WPMP No.47889 of 2012 stands closed.

Smt.B.Chennamma Vs The District… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

Writ Petition No.37737 of 2012

¶3

Date: December 7, 2012

Between:

B. Chennamma

… Petitioner

And

The District Collector (Civil Supplies) Anantapur District and others

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

Order:

¶11

Petitioner is a fair price shop dealer with regard to shop No.34 of Pulakunta village, Anantapur Rural Mandal, Anantapur District. Earlier, the 3^rd respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer, vide proceedings Rc.No.D1CS/566/2012, dated 06.02.2012, sent proposals to the 1^st respondent-District Collector (Civil Supplies), submitting report for bifurcation of fair price shop No.34 of Pulakunta village, to two shops, by creating additional shop, i.e. shop No.2. In the report itself, the 3^rd respondent-RDO has stated that proposals are not in accordance with the

¶12

guidelines, but recommended for creation of additional shop having regard to distance factor, by mentioning that distance between the existing and proposed shop is ½ km., and that cardholders are facing difficulty. When such bifurcation proposals were made to the 1^st respondent; referring to the observations made by the 1^st respondent, the District Supply Officer, Anantapur addressed to the 3^rd respondent-RDO to verify personally and submit proposals afresh, by proceedings Rc.No.K5/145/2012, dated 16.08.2012, inasmuch as distance between existing shop and the proposed shop is only ½ km., and therefore it will not warrant bifurcation of shop. It is the said proceedings which the petitioner is aggrieved of, to the extent of directing the 3^rd respondent-RDO to submit fresh proposals in respect of bifurcation of the existing shop No.34.

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. It is to be noticed that no decision has yet been taken for bifurcation of existing shop No.34. Even in the report submitted by the 3^rd respondent-RDO to the 1^st respondent, it is categorically stated that cards strength proposed for sanction of new shop is not in accordance with the guidelines. In any event, as proposals are sought

¶14

by the District Supply Officer, Anantapur, from the 3^rd respondent-RDO, by requesting him to verify personally and submit fresh proposals, by way of the impugned proceedings, it is not necessary to interfere with the same at this point of time. If the petitioner has any objections in respect of the proposed bifurcation, she can put-forth such objections, again, by way of representation before the

¶15

3^rd respondent-RDO. In such an event, I am sure, the 3^rd respondent-RDO will consider the objections of the petitioner and take further steps in response to the impugned proceedings.

¶16

Subject to the above, writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel, WPMP No.47889 of 2012 stands closed. No order as to costs.

¶17

_____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J

¶18

7 December 2012 MRR

Smt.B.Chennamma v. The District Collector,(Civil Supplies)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.B.Chennamma v. The District Collector,(Civil Supplies)

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

Guntur Venkateswarlu Vs Joint Collector

G. Revathi, Vs A.P.S.R.T.C

Mother Theresa Dwacra Group, rep.by Vs STate of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by Secretary

S.Suryanarayana Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Rep. by its President, Sri India Subbarao, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Datla Mallikarjuna Raju Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh