The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as frivolous and meritless. The Court held that since a suspension order on the same allegations was already in force in a connected matter, seeking repeated enquiries was an attempt to overreach that interim order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.40388 of 2014
DATE: 29.12.2014
Between: Mekala Mallaiah Sanna Obanna …Petitioner and The State of Andhra Pradesh and others …Respondents COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER : MS. M.HEMALATHA COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS 1 to 4 : AGP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES (AP)
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.40388 of 2014
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent No.3 in holding enquiry based on the petitioner’s representation as illegal and arbitrary.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
Respondent No.5 is the permanent fair price shop dealer of Vaddipalem Village, Kundurpi Mandal, Anantapur District. As essential commodities were not released for distribution, she has filed Writ Petition No.26633 of 2014. This Court disposed of the said Writ Petition by order, dated 10.09.2014 wherein it was observed that as the authorization of respondent No.5 was subsisting, withholding of allotment of stocks is illegal. Therefore, a direction was given to the official respondents to supply essential commodities to respondent No.5 as long as her authorization subsists. Taking a cue from the said order, respondent No.3 has issued a show cause notice on 10.10.2014 to respondent No.5 framing five charges. After purporting to consider the explanation of the petitioner, respondent No.4 has passed order on 21.10.2014. In the said order, respondent No.3 has rendered a finding that respondent No.5 is a resident of Ponnasamudram Village, Pavagada Taluq, Tumkur District, Karnataka State and that she has not been maintaining the shop by herself. Assailing the said order, respondent No.5 filed Writ Petition No.33878 of 2014. This Court has entertained the said Writ Petition and passed an order on 11.11.2014 wherein it was observed that respondent No.3 has passed the order of cancellation (mistakenly mentioned as the order of suspension) on illusory and non-existent grounds. Accordingly, the order of cancellation was suspended by this Court and the said order appears to be in force as on today. It is in this background that the petitioner along with some other cardholders appeared to have approached
respondent No.3 to enquire into the allegation that respondent No.5 is not residing in the Village as she is a resident of Ponnasamudram Village,Pavagada Taluq, Tumkur District, Karnataka State and that the shop is being run by someone else. In my opinion, when one of the grounds, on which authorization of respondent No.5 was cancelled, pertains to her not residing in the Village and not running the shop on her own and the said order is the subject matter of Writ Petition No.33878 of 2014 and the same was suspended, the petitioner cannot seek holding of repeated enquiries into the same allegation. Therefore, in my view this Writ Petition is a frivolous piece of litigation obviously aimed at overreaching the interim order granted in Writ Petition No.33878 of 2014.
For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed as wholly meritless.
As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.50643 of 2014 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
29th DECEMBER, 2014.
kvni
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition seeking an enquiry into the same allegation subject matter of a suspended order constitutes frivolous litigation.
Whether repeated enquiries should be held when the grounds for cancellation have been suspended by this Court.
Mekala Mallaiah Sanna Obanna
The State of Andhra Pradesh
C. NAGARJUNA REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
