Dismissed

M/s. Authorised Retail Kerosene Dealers Association v. The Commissioner of Civil Supplies

Telangana HC14 Mar 2014WP/12578/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge dismissed a writ petition filed by kerosene dealer representatives challenging their non-appointment as fair price shop dealers. The court held that the petitioners failed to prove their cases were ignored and that the authorities considered their applications, thus their grievance did not survive.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; pending miscellaneous petitions dismissed in consequence.

M/s. Authorised Retail Kerosene Dealers Association… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.12578 of 2010

¶2

DATED: 14.03.2014

¶3

Between: M/s Authorised Retail Kerosene Dealers Association, Circle III Lingojiguda, Saroor Nagar, RR District, rep. by its General Secretary

¶4

... Petitioner

¶5

And

¶6

The Commissioner of Civil Supplies, Government of A.P, Hyderabad & others

¶7

… Respondents

¶8

The Court made the following:

¶9

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.12578 of 2010

¶10

ORDER:

¶11

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶12

2. This writ petition was filed challenging the proceedings of the 3^rd and 4^th respondents in issuing notification to fill up the posts of F.P. Shop dealers by denying the conversion of nominated retailers as F.P. Shop dealers in the view of various G.Os., Circular letters of the respondents and consequently set aside the notification issued by respondents 3 and 4. The case of the petitioners is that they were appointed as Nominated Retailers, including Hawker and License was issued under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Petroleum Products (Licensing and Regulation (of Supplies) Order, 1980 and A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008. When the authorities of the Civil Supplies Department were directed to discontinue the N.R. system in the year 2005, the Federation of the A.P. Kerosene Retail Sellers approached this Court and filed WP No.13804 of 2005. The said writ petition was disposed of on the undertaking given by the respondents therein that whenever a vacancy of fair price shop dealer arose, such vacancy shall be filled in by converting the retail kerosene shop dealer functioning in that area as a fair price shop dealer, if otherwise eligible. In pursuance of the orders of this Court, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.52, CAF & CS-I Department dated 18.12.2008 giving guidelines for appointment of fair price shop dealers under AP SPDS (Control) Orders 2008. As per the guideline No.9(iv), preference shall be given to the Hawkers/N.R. having license under the A.P.P.P. (L.Rs.) Rules 1980 for selection and appointment as fair price shop dealer, while filling up the existing or new F.P. shop vacancy, subject to fulfilling the other qualifications. The 3^rd and 4^th respondents issued notifications calling the applications from the eligible candidates for filling up the vacancies. But in the said

¶13

notifications, the preference was not indicated. However, the petitioners applied as candidates while filling up of the vacancies and it is their grievance that ignoring their candidatures, appointments were made.

¶14

3. The 3^rd respondent filed a counter stating that vide G.O.Ms.No.32 dated 30.08.2007, the Government has issued guidelines stating that preference shall be given to Hawkers/N.Rs dealers while filling up of the vacancies of fair price shop dealers. They denied the allegation that the cases of the Hawkers/NR’s were not considered at the time of filing up of the vacancies.

¶15

4. Considering this situation, a single Judge of this Court vacated the stay orders granted in the connected writ petitions. Against the said orders of vacating the stay, the petitioners in WP No.13705 of 2010 preferred an appeal in WA No.1033 of 2010 and the same was dismissed on 06.12.2010. Thereafter, the writ petition is posted for hearing.

¶16

5. In view of the consideration of the cases of the petitioners, the grievance of the petitioners does not survive and the petitioners have not made out any case to show that their cases were not considered. Even though the notification did not indicate preference as specified in G.O.Ms.No.52, dated 18.12.2008, pursuant to the notification, the petitioners applied for being appointed as fair price shop dealers and their cases were considered by the 3^rd and 4^th respondents at the time of appointment.

¶17

6. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions in this writ petition, if any, shall stand dismissed in consequence. No costs.

¶18

Date: 14.03.2014 BSS

¶19

A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J

¶20

¶21

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶22

WRIT PETITION No.12578 of 2010

¶23

Date: 14.03.2014

¶24

BSS

M/s. Authorised Retail Kerosene Dealers Association v. The Commissioner of Civil Supplies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Authorised Retail Kerosene Dealers Association v. The Commissioner of Civil Supplies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Sheel Security Products, Rep. by its Proprietor Vs The Controller, Legal Metrology, Gandhi Nagar

Badise Arjuna Rao Vs The District Collector (Cs)

Battu Shekar Vs The District Collector (C.S.)

Smt. G.Dhanalaxmi Vs The Government of A.P.

A. Vijaya Rama Rao, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Basetti Amrutha Bai, Vs Municipal Council, Jagtial, District Karimnagar, rep.by its