Allowed

Thokala Venkateswara Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Telangana HC27 Nov 2014WP/36286/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In WP No.36286 of 2014, the petitioner challenged the suspension of his fair price shop authorization. The High Court directed the issuing authority to conduct a complete, impartial enquiry within two months, affording the petitioner a personal hearing, access to reports, and rights to cross-examine witnesses before passing a final speaking order.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondent No.3 to complete the enquiry within two months, offer personal hearing and cross-examination opportunities, and pass a speaking order.

Thokala Venkateswara Rao, Vs The State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.36286 of 2014

¶2

Dated 27.11.2014

¶3

Between:

¶4

Thokala Venkateswara Rao

¶5

…Petitioner

¶6

And

¶7

The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Prl.Secretary (CS) Hyderabad and 3 others.

¶8

…Respondents

¶9

Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.N.A.Ramachandra Murthy

¶10

Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies (AP)

¶11

The Court made the following:

¶12

Order:

¶13

This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside the proceeding in Rc.J/787/2014, dated 26-06-2014, issued by respondent No.3 whereby he has suspended the petitioner’s authorization, in

¶14

respect of fair price shop No.3 of Chadalawada Village, N.G.Padu Mandal, Prakasam District, pending enquiry.

¶15

Considering the fact that the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, were initiated against the petitioner as far back as 12-06-2014, I find it appropriate to direct respondent No.3 to complete the enquiry and pass a final order.

¶16

Accordingly, respondent No.3 is directed to complete the enquiry after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner to put forth his case. Respondent No.3 shall examine all the registers in detail and furnish copies of the reports submitted by his subordinates to the petitioner, in the event respondent No.3 proposes to rely upon any of those reports. He shall also give the petitioner an opportunity of cross-examining the card holders or any other person, who made statements against him. On completion of such enquiry, respondent No.3 shall pass a speaking order by displaying absolute objectivity without being guided by extraneous considerations. He shall complete this exercise within a period of two

¶17

months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶18

Subject to the above directions, the Writ

¶19

Petition is disposed of.

¶20

As a sequel, WPMP.No.45421 of 2014, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.

¶21

______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J)

¶22

Dt: 27^th November, 2014 LUR

Thokala Venkateswara Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thokala Venkateswara Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

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

Sandraboyina Guravaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

Shakeera Begum Vs The State of Telangana

Kola Kulasekhar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B. Krishna Murthy, Vs The Apsrtc

Tejomoi Mahila Dwacra Group , Vs The Commissioner

Ghantasala Nageswararao Vs The District Collector