Disposed

Tangudu Makayya v. The Joint Collector (Civil Supplies Wing)

Telangana HC18 Sept 2014WP/1571/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought restoration of Kerosene supply after license renewal obstacles. Court disposed of the writ petition granting liberty to submit eight more weeks to provide required documents for firm reconstitution, maintaining the stance to reinstate supply of PDS Kerosene.

What did the court decide?

Granted liberty to submit requisite documents within eight weeks; interim order of 02.02.2009 continued.

Tangudu Makayya Vs The Joint Collector (Civil… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 1571 OF 2009

¶3

DATED 18^TH SEPTEMBER, 2014.

BETWEEN

Tangudu Makayya

….Petitioner

and

The Joint Collector (Civil Supplies Wing) Srikakulam District and ors.

¶9

…Respondents.

¶10

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶11

WRIT PETITION No. 1571 OF 2009

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for the first respondent and learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent.

¶14

It is stated that the family of the petitioner has been engaged in the business of selling Kerosene as Wholesale Dealer of Indian Oil Corporation since 1965. The first respondent issued ‘B’ form licence under Petroleum Products Control Order, 1980 and the same is renewed from time to time. The petitioner has been carrying on business under the partnership deed entered on 13.01.1987 by himself and his

¶15

mother as partners. After expiry of his mother on 07.12.2004, the petitioner entered into new partnership deed with his second son, who is the successor of late mother of the petitioner as per Will executed by her during her life time and the said partnership deed was submitted to the second respondent-Oil Corporation. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite submission of the new partnership deed, the second respondent stopped the supply of Kerosene from the month of April, 2008 without issuing any prior notice and conducting any enquiry. It is the case of the petitioner that no malpractices in supplying the Kerosene under the Public District System have been alleged against their firm. Assailing the action of the respondents in not supplying the kerosene, the present Writ Petition was filed.

¶16

The first respondent as well as the second respondent filed separate counter affidavits stating that the petitioner did not submit all the requisite documents while submitting the request letter enclosing the new partnership deed as well as the Will of his mother. It is further stated that the documents namely (1) request letter from the Dealer/Existing partner, (ii) Request letter from the incoming Partner (iii) No Objection Certificate from the legal heirs stating that they are concurred to give the dealership to one of the legal heirs of the deceased partner and (iv) legal heir certificate from the Mandal Revenue Officer, are required to be submitted for proceeding further on the reconstitution of the firm. It is further stated that mere submission of the request letter and the Will of the deceased partner would not serve the proposal for reconstitution of the firm. Since the aforesaid documents are not submitted even after the petitioner was requested, the supplies of PDS

¶17

kerosene were stopped.

¶18

This Court by interim order dated 02.02.2009 directed the respondents to restore supplies to enable the petitioner to carry on business as usual provided the license granted in favour of the petitioner is neither cancelled nor suspended as on the date of the order. Pursuant to the said order, the supply of PDS kerosene was restored with effect from March, 2009 .

¶19

Today when the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal, the learned Counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to submit all the required documents and therefore the respondents may be directed to consider for reconstitution of the firm as per the Rules and Regulations of the second respondent.

¶20

In view of the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, this Writ Petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to submit all the requisite documents as stated supra to the respondents, if so advised, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order for the purpose of reconstitution of the firm as per the Rules and Regulation of the Indian Oil Corporation for supply of the Kerosene under the Public Distribution System. If the petitioner submitted all the requisite documents as stated supra, the respondents may consider the same and issue necessary orders for reconstitution of the firm in accordance with law. Till then, the interim order granted by this Court on 02.02.2009 shall continue.

¶21

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions pending consideration if any in the Writ

¶22

Petition shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶23

JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶24

DATED 18^TH SEPTEMBER, 2014. Msnro

Tangudu Makayya v. The Joint Collector (Civil Supplies Wing)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tangudu Makayya v. The Joint Collector (Civil Supplies Wing)

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

Abdul Samand Khan Vs MunicipalCorporation of Hyderabad, rep.by its

Devineni Radha Rani, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

K. Ramapullam Raju Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

N. Farid Basha Vs The Government of India, rep. by its Secretary

Gulam Mohamood S/o Gulam Dastigir, Vs Mandal Revenue Officer, Mandal Revenue

M/s. Siddartha Educational Society, rep. by its Secretary Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the Principal Secretary