Allowed

K. Chandra Sekhar Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC24 Dec 2014WP/39495/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the unauthorized removal of essential commodity stocks and denial of November supplies following a late renewal application. The High Court held that a permanent dealer must not be abruptly deprived of supplies while his renewal application is pending, directing the authorities to continue permitting sales and decide the application promptly.

What did the court decide?

Respondents No.3 and 4 directed to continue petitioner as fair price shop dealer, permit distribution of essential commodities, and decide renewal application and communicate decision.

K. Chandra Sekhar Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy

¶2

Writ Petition No.39495 of 2014

¶3

Dated: 24.12.2014

¶4

Between:

¶5

K.Chandra Sekhar Reddy

¶6

.. Petitioner

¶7

and

¶8

The State of A.P., rep. by its Prl.Secretary, Civil Supplies Dept., Hyderabad and 3 others.

¶9

¶10

Respondents

¶11

Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.M.Karibasaiah

¶12

Counsel for respondents: G.P. for Civil Supplies (AP)

¶13

The court made the following:

¶14

Order:

¶15

This Writ Petition is filed with the grievance that having released the stocks of essential commodities for the month of October, 2014, to the petitioner’s fair price shop and having allowed the petitioner to distribute the same to the card holders for one day, respondent No.4 has taken back those stocks without any reason and has not been releasing the stocks of essential commodities from the month of November, 2014.

¶16

The petitioner averred that he has paid the requisite fee for renewal of his authorisation vide Challan, dated 06.06.2014, and that his application for renewal is pending with respondent No.3. He has further averred that no proceedings have been initiated either for suspension or cancellation of his authorisation.

¶17

The learned Assistant Government Pleader

¶18

for Civil Supplies (AP) representing the respondents pointed out that the petitioner has applied for renewal belatedly i.e., a couple of months after the expiry of his authorisation.

¶19

In my opinion, the petitioner being a permanent fair price shop dealer and renewal of his authorization being a formality, the respondents cannot abruptly stop the supply of the stocks of essential commodities to his fair price shop when his application for renewal is pending before respondent No.3.

¶20

In this view of the matter, respondent No.3 is directed to consider the petitioner’s application for renewal of authorization, take a decision thereon and communicate the same to the petitioner. Pending consideration of the petitioner’s application for renewal, respondent Nos.3 and 4 are directed to continue him as the fair price shop dealer and permit him to distribute the essential commodities. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶21

As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.49541 of 2014 filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.

¶22

(C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J)

¶23

Dt: 24^th December, 2014 LUR

K. Chandra Sekhar Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Chandra Sekhar Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

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

Kosuri Lakshmi Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt.K.Veeramma Vs The State of Telangana

L.Lakshmi Kala, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Abdul Rasheed, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Ramavath Koteswar Rao Vs The State of Telangana