Allowed

Chenchala Chittemma v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC27 Dec 2014WP/40130/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged replacement of a fair price shop dealer as illegal. Court held Respondent No.3 lacked jurisdiction as he was not the appointing authority. Impugned memo set aside orders allowing writ and imposing costs.

What did the court decide?

Impugned memo dated 20.09.2014 issued by Respondent No.3 was set aside. Respondent No.3 ordered to pay costs of Rs.5,000.

Chenchala Chittemma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.40130 of 2014 Date:27.12.2014

¶2

Between:

¶3

Chenchala Chittemma, W/o R.Gopal Rao

¶4

..... Petitioner

¶5

And:

¶6

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

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri A.Ravi Shankar

¶9

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

¶10

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶11

This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside memo No.148/2014 CS, dated 20.09.2014, issued by respondent No.3, whereby he has replaced the petitioner with an in-charge dealer only on the purported ground that he has committed certain irregularities in distribution of essential commodities.

¶12

At the hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies (Andhra Pradesh) has fairly conceded that respondent No.3 has no jurisdiction to issue the impugned proceeding as, he is not the appointing authority.

¶13

In my opinion, respondent No.3 has acted in a highly illegal manner by clutching at the jurisdiction which is not vested with him. Under the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008, it is only

¶14

respondent No.2, who is the appointing authority, who is vested with the jurisdiction to suspend, vary or cancel the authorization of a fair price shop dealer. Unless such power is exercised and the authorization of fair price shop dealer is suspended, varied or cancelled, he/she cannot be replaced with another dealer, more so, only for the reason that the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 have been initiated against him/her.

¶15

In this view of the matter, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned memo, dated 20.09.2014, issued by respondent No.3 is set aside. Respondent No.3 is saddled with costs of Rs.5,000/- payable from his personal money for passing a patently illegal order.

¶16

As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.50324 of 2014 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

¶17

___________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶18

27^th December 2014 DR

Chenchala Chittemma v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chenchala Chittemma 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Axis Bank Limited Vs M. Prabhakar

Mada Vithal, Vs The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies/

Ravipati Kotaiah Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

G.Venkateswarlu, S/o Mallanna, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P. Akka Rao, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

V.Gopinath Rao, Vs Sri Dilwar Ali Khan