Allowed

Smt.K.Veeramma v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC23 Dec 2014WP/39458/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a writ petition for Mandamus directing the authorities to renew the petitioner's fair price shop authorization. The court held that since all further proceedings against the petitioner were closed by imposing a fine, the authorization must be renewed to enable her to resume duties.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Mandamus issued to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to take immediate steps to renew the petitioner's fair price shop authorization. W.P.M.P.No.49492 of 2014 disposed of as infructuous.

Smt.K.Veeramma Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.39458 of 2014

¶2

Date:23.12.2014

¶3

Between:

¶4

K.Veeramma, W/o Papa Rao

¶5

..... Petitioner

¶6

And:

¶7

The Govt of Telangana, reptd by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Hyderabad and two others.

¶8

.....Respondents

¶9

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri M.M.M.Srinivas For Sri M.V.Hanumantha Rao

¶10

Counsel for the Respondents: GP for Civil Supplies (TS)

¶11

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶12

This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2, in not renewing the petitioner’s fair price shop authorization after restoration, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶13

The petitioner was a dealer of fair price shop No.05013 of Mathkepalli Village, Chintakani Mandal, Khammam District. On 15.11.2010, her fair price shop was inspected by the Mandal Revenue Inspector-II, Chintakani and allegedly found certain variations. Respondent No.2 while issuing show cause notice, dated 19.11.2010, suspended the petitioner’s fair price shop authorization. The proceedings initiated under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) following the

¶14

said inspection ended in confiscation of 50% of the seized stock under order, dated 24.01.2012, passed by the Joint Collector, Khammam. On 02.08.2014, respondent No.2 has issued a show cause notice calling for explanation from the petitioner as to why her fair price shop authorization should not be cancelled. By proceedings in Rc.No.C2/3671/2010, dated NIL.09.2014, respondent No.2 has let off the petitioner by imposing a fine of Rs.6,000/- finding that the petitioner is a physically handicapped person. The petitioner averred that on 20.09.2014, she has paid the fine amount by way of challan. She is also stated to have made a representation to respondent No.2 on 11.12.2014 seeking renewal of her fair price shop authorization. As no action has been taken thereon, the petitioner filed this Writ Petition.

¶15

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies (Telangana State), I am of the opinion that respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall take immediate steps to renew the petitioner’s fair price shop authorization to enable her to resume her duties as the fair price shop dealer as, all further proceedings initiated against her were closed by respondent No.2 by imposing a fine of Rs.6,000/- on her.

¶16

In this view of the matter, a Mandamus shall issue to respondent Nos.2 and 3 as prayed for.

¶17

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed.

¶18

As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.49492 of 2014 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

¶19

JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶20

23^rd December 2014

¶21

Smt.K.Veeramma v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.K.Veeramma v. The State of Telangana

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

Bonagiri Gopala Krishna Murty, Vs The Chairman and Managing Director

B.Raghupathi Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Principal Secretary -

Bhuthanadhu. N.S.v.S.Dora, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Adarsha Rythy Mithra Sangam, Tadigadapa, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Kosuri Lakshmi Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Thirumalasetty Markandeyulu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary