Allowed

N.Vinodh Babu v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its

Telangana HC24 Oct 2014WP/31824/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner's fair price shop aggrieved by delay in supply of essential commodities. Court held that denial was illegal, directed timely future releases from November 2014, and directed officials to inform correct submission dates.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to supply essential commodities from November 2014 onwards if demand drafts submitted within intimated time; threatened with serious action for repeat conduct.

N.Vinodh Babu Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.31824 of 2014

¶3

Date:24.10.2014

¶4

Between: N.Vinod Babu, S/o Pattabhireddy

¶5

..... Petitioner

¶6

And:

¶7

The Govt of A.P., reptd by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Deparment, Hyderabad and two others.

¶8

.....Respondents

¶9

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri V.Eswaraiah Chowdary Counsel for the Respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies (Andhra Pradesh)

¶10

The Court made the following:

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3 in not releasing the essential commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop No.2 of Guthivaripalli Village, Renigunta Mandal, Chittoor District as illegal and arbitrary.

¶13

At the hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies (Andhra Pradesh), on instructions, submitted that as the petitioner has not submitted the Demand draft on or before 20.09.2014, the essential commodities were not supplied to his fair price shop.

¶14

Sri V.Eswaraiah Chowdary, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that as his client had time till 25.09.2014 for submission of the Demand draft, he has taken the demand draft on 24.09.2014 and handed it to respondent No.3 on the same day.

¶15

In my opinion, being a regular dealer, the petitioner would not have failed to submit the Demand draft within the prescribed time. Respondent No.3 cannot indulge in unfair methods of denying a fair price shop dealer of his right to distribute essential commodities on non-existent grounds.

¶16

Since learned Assistant Government Pleader has stated that the essential commodities for the current month were already issued to an in-charge dealer, respondent No.3 is directed not to repeat such conduct in future. He is directed to inform the petitioner as to the period before which the latter should submit the Demand drafts in future and if the petitioner submits his demand drafts within the time intimated by respondent No.3, he shall release the essential commodities from November 2014 onwards, without fail, to the petitioner’s fair price shop. In the event, respondent No.3 repeats his conduct in future, this Court will take a serious view of his conduct and initiate appropriate steps. Subject to the above directions and observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶17

As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.39780 of 2014 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

¶18

____________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶19

24^th October, 2014 DR

N.Vinodh Babu v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Vinodh Babu v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its

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

Smt. Sivanageswaramma w/o Sambasiva Rao Vs Government of a.P., rep. by its Principal

K.Ramachandrudu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Yunix Agros, Vs The Commissioner and Director of Agriculture

Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Self Help Group Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri Kudupudi Santhi Bushanam, Vs Sri Mutyala Raju Revu, I.A.S.

Hannam Yousuf Qureshi, S/o.Rasheed Yousuf Qureshi Vs The Govt of Telangana