Allowed

Nallapaneni Venkata Ratnam v. The District Collector (Cs) Prakasam District.

Telangana HC21 Mar 2014WP/17030/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition reviewed appellate orders dismissing a dealer's appeal against dealership cancellation. The High Court held appellates failed to record reasons and apply their mind. The writ was allowed, orders set aside, and matter remitted to the appellate authority.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed. Impugned orders set aside and matter remitted to the 2nd Respondent to dispose of appeal within 3 months after recording reasons.

Nallapaneni Venkata Ratnam Vs The… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶2

W.P.NO.17030 OF 2010

¶3

ORDER:-

¶4

Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondents. 02. The Petitioner is a fair price shop dealer of Modepally Village, Addanki Mandal, Prakasam District. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Addanki inspected the fair price shop of the Petitioner along with Mandal Revenue Inspector and Panchayat Secretary, Dhenuvakonda and found some irregularities. Four (4) charges were framed, which reads as under:-

¶5

1) That the dealer has diverted 60 Bags (30Qts) of Public Distribution System rice to black market.

¶6

2) That on physical verification of stocks with reference to stock register, 500 Lts of K.Oil and 100 Kgs of Public Distribution System rice was found variation.

¶7

3) That the dealer was stored 500 lts of K.Oil and 100 Kgs of rice unauthorised for indulging clandestine business.

¶8

4) That the dealer is not maintaining the records properly.

¶9

03. After considering the explanation, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole cancelled the dealership of the Petitioner by order dated 0603-2006. Against the same, the Petitioner preferred an appeal to the 2^nd Respondent. The 2^nd Respondent disposed of the appeal with the following observations:-

¶10

“The case came up for final hearing on 7-7-2006. The

¶11

advocate for the appellant and the appellant present. Heard both the parties, arguments, perused the facts on record and material evidence, the appointing authority has issued show cause notice to the appellant, framing specific charges, affording opportunity to them to explain. Hence upon considering such explanation, the Revenue Divisional Officer has passed orders dated 7-3-2006. This Court feels no need to interfere with the impugned order.”

¶12

04. The appellate authority has not at all given any reasons except stating that he felt no need to interfere with the impugned order. The said order was passed by the 2^nd Respondent on 07-072006 against which the Petitioner preferred a revision to the 1^st Respondent. The 1^st Respondent passed an order on 01-06-2010 upholding the order passed by the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 with the following observations:-

¶13

“The allegations levelled against the Revision Petitioner are grave in nature i.e., diversion of P.D.S. Rice into black market without distributing to the cardholders and storage of Kerosene and Rice at a place other than F.P. Shop with an intention to divert the same into black market, which are proved during the course of enquiry. Further, the grounds mentioned in the Revision Petition are not having any documentary evidence. Hence, this court opines that there is no need to interfere with the orders passed by the Appellate Authority on 7-7-2006 which holds good. The Revision Petition is disposed off accordingly.”

¶14

05. A perusal of the above orders passed by the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 would clearly show that they have not applied their mind to the facts of the case nor the grounds raised by the Petitioner in the appeal as well as in the revision. The orders are without any reasons. 06. In the circumstances, the order passed by the Respondent Nos.1

¶15

and 2 are set aside and the matter is remitted to the 2^nd

¶16

Respondent for consideration of the appeal in accordance with law after giving due opportunity to the Petitioner and to dispose of the same within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order duly recording the reasons. In the meanwhile, the interim order passed by this court on 16-07-2010 shall continue.

¶17

Accordingly, with the above observation, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶18

_________________________ A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO,J

¶19

21-03-2014 TSNR

Nallapaneni Venkata Ratnam v. The District Collector (Cs) Prakasam District.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nallapaneni Venkata Ratnam v. The District Collector (Cs) Prakasam District.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaik Faheem Vs The Commissioner

Ramesh Kumar Vs The State of A.P. rep. by Secretary, Excise Department

Sevakaula Narahari Vs The Station House Officer

Shaik Khirunnisa Begum Vs The Superintendent of Police

V.Allvelu, Vs The Govt. of a.P.,rep. by its Secretary, Randb,a.P.

A.Shankarappa Vs the Commissioner, Zaheerabad Municipality