Disposed

M. Lakshmanna v. The District Collector (Civil supplies)

Telangana HC12 Dec 2012WP/38353/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment addresses a writ petition challenging the suspension of a Fair Price Shop authorization. The court directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to complete the enquiry into allegations of irregularities within two months, prohibiting the respondents from making permanent arrangements to replace the petitioner during this period.

What did the court decide?

Direction to complete enquiry within two months; respondents barred from permanent replacement pending enquiry; authorization to stand restored automatically if enquiry delayed.

M. Lakshmanna Vs The District Collector (Civil supplies) — Consumer Protection | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.38353 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 with a prayer as under: -

¶5

“….. to declare the proceeding No. RC (M) No.2270/2012 dated 16.11.2012 of the 2nd respondent in suspending the authorization of petitioner's fair price shop No.25 of Neruduppala Village, Gonagandla Mandal, Kurnool District by framing charges without their being any inspection of the Fair Price Shop as-illegal, arbitrary and violation of principle of natural justice and consequently set aside the same directing the 2nd respondent to continue the petitioner to run the Fair Price Shop No.25, Neruduppala Village, Gonagandla Mandal, Kurnool.”

¶6

The petitioner is an authorised fair price shop dealer for distribution of essential commodities for the said Village. Based on the report of the Tahsildar, Gonagandla, dated 26.10.2012, issued in Rc.No.252/12, the impugned order is passed by the second respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer. In the impugned order, the charges levelled against the petitioner are as under:

¶7

“1. That he is distributing PDS rice two or three days only in the month;

¶8

2. that he has not distributed the sugar, palmolien oil and red gram dal even though the commodities are

¶9

allotted to him;

¶10

3.that he has not distributed the sugar (spl.quota) allotted during ramzan festival;

¶11

4. that he has failed to exhibits stock-cum-price list boared in the fair price shop;

¶12

5. that he is not distributing essential commodities with electronic weighing machine;

¶13

6. that he is not maintaing the timing in distribution of essential commodities as prescribed by the Government;

¶14

7. he is in the habit of distribution of essential commodities without obtaining release order from the competent authorities.”

¶15

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no inspection was made by the Tahsildar before sending a report and that the allegations made against the petitioner are false and incorrect. With regard to the correctness of the allegations, it is a matter for enquiry by the second respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, who is the competent authority under the provisions of the A.P. Scheduled Commodities (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2008.

¶16

As it is the plea of the petitioner that all the allegations made against him are false and incorrect, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition directing the second respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer to complete the enquiry on the allegations made against the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till then, the respondents are directed not to make any permanent arrangement in the place of the petitioner. If

¶17

the enquiry is not completed within the time stipulated as above, the authorisation of the petitioner shall stand restored automatically without any further orders.

¶18

Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶19

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶20

_________________________ JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶21

12^th December 2012 DR

M. Lakshmanna v. The District Collector (Civil supplies)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Lakshmanna 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

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

Thallapalli. Ravinder Vs The Revenue Divisional officer

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