Allowed

K.R.v.v.Sanyasi Chetty, v. The District Collector, Visakhapatnam District.

Telangana HC18 Dec 2012WP/38826/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge order allowed a writ petition challenging an order suspending a fair price shop dealer's authorization without a hearing. The court quashed the suspension, directing the authority to issue a show-cause notice and conduct an enquiry expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition allowed; impugned proceedings quashed; respondents directed to issue show-cause notice and conduct enquiry.

K.R.v.v.Sanyasi Chetty, Vs The District… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.38826 OF 2012

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

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

¶5

This Writ Petition is filed questioning the proceedings bearing Rc.No.4366/2012-14/C, dated 17.11.2012, issued by respondent No.2, suspending the authorisation of the petitioner pending enquiry.

¶6

The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer for distribution of essential commodities for shop No.79 of Papayyapalem Village, Anakapalle Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. It is the grievance of the petitioner that without giving any opportunity to him, the impugned proceedings was issued.

¶7

In the impugned proceedings, it is stated that though the petitioner is authorised fair price shop dealer, it is noticed that the said shop is being run by one Venkatarao, instead of the petitioner.

¶8

It is true that under the scheme of Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008, a Control Order framed under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, power is vested on the appointing authority to suspend the authorisation of a dealer, if there are any allegations against him. With regard to the only allegation made against the petitioner, it is a matter which can be enquired into, without losing any time. In the absence of any other allegations, which warrants immediate suspension pending enquiry, this Court is of the view that the impugned proceedings was issued without any reason to immediately oust the petitioner from such running of the shop, as stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. It is further stated that the petitioner was appointed in the year 2007 and since then he has been continuing as a dealer.

¶9

For the aforesaid reasons, I deem it appropriate to allow the Writ Petition by quashing the impugned proceedings bearing Rc.No.4366/2012-14/C, dated 17.11.2012. However, it is open to the respondents to issue show-cause notice on the allegations made in the impugned proceedings, conduct enquiry and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible.

¶10

Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is allowed. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. No costs.

¶11

________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J

¶12

December 18, 2012

¶13

Note: Issue C.C. in two days. B/o.MD

¶14

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶15

WRIT PETITION No.38826 OF 2012

¶16

December 18, 2012

¶17

K.R.v.v.Sanyasi Chetty, v. The District Collector, Visakhapatnam District.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.R.v.v.Sanyasi Chetty, v. The District Collector, Visakhapatnam District.

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

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

Sri M.BaI Reddy Vs The Special Commissioner/

B.Maqbool Ahmed, Vs The Divisional Forest Officer

Taddi Nagalakshmi Vs The Revenue Divisonal Officer

Kuraku Chinna Siddaiah Vs The Superintending Engineer