Allowed

Thallapalli. Ravinder v. The Revenue Divisional officer

Telangana HC12 Dec 2012WP/38308/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the respondents could not arbitrarily stop supplying commodities to a fair price shop without passing a specific order cancelling or suspending the dealer's valid authorisation, even if irregularities were noted during inspection.

What did the court decide?

Direct the respondents to supply commodities to the petitioner's fair price shop as per entitlement if the authorisation remains valid; such direction does not preclude taking steps against irregulari

Thallapalli. Ravinder Vs The Revenue Divisional officer — Consumer Protection | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.38308 of 2012

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

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

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in supplying the commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop No.0817 of Akkannapet Village, Husnabad Mandal, Karimnagar District, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶5

The petitioner was appointed as a fair price shop dealer for the aforesaid fair price shop. While so, his business premises was inspected by the Food Inspector on 10-10-2012, and alleging that there are certain irregularities in maintaining the registers, the available quantities of rice, sugar and palmolien oil were seized.

¶6

It is the grievance of the petitioner that though he is holding valid authorisation, without passing any orders as contemplated under the provisions of A.P. State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2008 (for short ‘the Control Order, 2008’), the respondents have abruptly stopped the supply of the commodities to his fair price shop.

¶7

When the petitioner is holding valid authorisation, there is no reason for the respondents for stopping the supply of the commodities to his fair price shop. Under the

¶8

Scheme of the Control Order, 2008, framed under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, if there is any violation of the Control Order, 2008 or any of the conditions thereof, the respondents are empowered to vary, amend, suspend or cancel the authorisation. But, without resorting to such power by the competent authority, merely basing on the inspection report, the respondents cannot stop the supply of the commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop.

¶9

In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents that if the authorisation of the petitioner is valid as on date, they shall supply the commodities to his fair price as per his entitlement. Further, it is made clear that if any irregularities are noticed in the functioning of the said fair price shop, this order will not preclude the respondents from taking appropriate steps and passing the orders in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶10

__________________________ JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY 12^th December 2012 Note: Issue CC in two days. B/o DR/SIRI

Thallapalli. Ravinder v. The Revenue Divisional officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thallapalli. Ravinder v. The Revenue Divisional 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

Sri G. Sharan Kumar, Vs The Collector (Cs)

M/s. American Organics (India) Company Vs The Commissioner 8s Director of Agriculture

M/s Manikanta Lorry Transport, Vs The Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Rep.

Smt. J. Premavathi Vs The Tahsildar

M. Lakshmanna Vs The District Collector (Civil supplies)

Bollineni Venkata Satyavathi Vs The A.P. Eastern Power Distribution Corporation Limited