Partly allowed

Eega Padmavathi, v. The District Collector

Telangana HC26 Jun 2013WP/4098/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A common judgment dismissing numerous appeals and writ petitions filed by legal heirs of deceased fair-price shop dealers seeking compassionate appointment or transfer of dealership. The bench noted that while the Control Order currently bars transfer, it is directed for the State to decide based on a sub-committee report.

What did the court decide?

Directed the State of Andhra Pradesh to decide on legal heirs' appointment based on the sub-committee report and take further steps within two months.

Eega Padmavathi, Vs The District Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶2

W.A.Nos.319, 321, 325, 326, 332, 347, 349, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 359 of 2012 and W.P.Nos.4098, 8161, 8957, 9159, 9662, 10746, 11136, 12794, 28730, 28742, 28753, 30198, 33395, 33694, 34285, 34837, 35774, 40425, 40431, and 40463 of 2012

¶3

COMMON JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V.Ramana)

¶4

With the consent of all the learned counsel for all appellants as well as writ petitioners, out of which these appeals arise, have been heard and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

¶5

Entire batch of cases relates to claim made by legal representatives of deceased fair-price shop dealers, who have died during the period of their dealership. The relief sought for in all the batch of cases was seeking appointment of legal heirs as dealers in the place of deceased dealer on par with compassionate appointment.

¶6

Before the learned single Judge it was represented on behalf of the appellants/State that the state government is considering feasibility of taking appropriate policy decision with regard to providing dealership to one of the legal heirs of the deceased dealers on compassionate ground and for examining the said issue a sub-committee was constituted and on report of such committee, the state government would take up appropriate decision. Learned single Judge, therefore, recorded in the order that it would be appropriate to wait for the decision of the state government and in the meanwhile directed the state government to appoint or continue one of the eligible family members as fair-price shop dealer temporarily for a period of three (3) months and renew

¶7

such appointment till the government announces its decision. Further directions were also issued not to take up selections and make regular appointment with respect to such shops held by the deceased dealer.

¶8

In the batch of appeals against the aforesaid orders, the Division Bench has considered the matter on 21.03.2012 and passed the following order:

¶9

“Learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the appellants has drawn our attention to Clause 5 Sub-clause (11) and Clause 5 Sub-clause (12) of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the “Control Order”).

¶10

On a reading of the aforesaid Clauses, it is quite clear that the legal heir of a deceased fair price shop dealer is not entitled to the transfer of authorization.

¶11

Issue notice to the respondents returnable by 04.07.2012.

¶12

List on 04.07.2012.

¶13

In the meanwhile, there will be a stay of operation of the order dated 07.02.2012 passed by the learned single Judge in writ petition No.30744 of 2011.”

¶14

The batch of appeals when listed before us, learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies submits that the subcommittee has already examined the entire matter and submitted its report to the government and the decision of the government is awaited. Learned Government Pleader further submits that since the matter involves decision on policy, some more time is necessary.

¶15

All the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners

¶16

submitted that as the issue relates to taking appropriate action to redress the hardship caused to the legal heirs, the appropriate decision to appoint one of the eligible legal heirs in the place of deceased dealer would be on par with the government policy relating to compassionate appointments.

¶17

Since the issue is under examination of the government relating to formulation of a policy, it would not be appropriate for us to adjudicate on the said issue particularly, as the sub-committee appointed by the government has already deliberated on the issue and given it’s report to the government for appropriate decision. Further, on account of the stay of the operation of the order of learned single Judge granted by the Division Bench under order referred to above, the issue as to considering the cases of the writ petitioners would depend upon the nature of policy decision that the government would take and based on the said decision Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 may have to be properly amended to give effect to the said policy decision. At this stage, therefore, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the appeals as well as the writ petitions by directing the State of Andhra Pradesh to take a decision on the basis of the report of the sub-committee and take further appropriate steps in accordance with the said decision within two (2) months. All the contentions of the writ petitioners raised in the writ petitions are kept open. Accordingly, writ petitions and writ appeals are disposed of. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed in the writ petitions and writ appeals shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶18

______________________ JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA

¶19

_________________________________ JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR 26^th June, 2013 Ksp

Eega Padmavathi, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Eega Padmavathi, v. The District Collector

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

M.Ravi Kumar Yadav Vs The Spl. Court under a.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act

The All India Council for Technical Education Rep. by its Vs M/s. Gayathri Educational Society

Mir Mohsin Ali, Vs The Andhra Pradesh Housing Board

M. Laxmi Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Prl

Premchand Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Principal

The Joint Collector Vs P.Lokeswara Rao