Partly allowed

K.Hanumantha Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC18 Aug 2015WP/26033/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows a writ petition filed by a fair price shop dealer challenging the suspension of his authorization. The court set aside the impugned suspension order, directing an enquiry within three months, as the suspension was found to be unnecessary given the nature of the allegations.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of suspension of the authorization was set aside; liberty granted to the respondent to conduct an enquiry within three months.

K.Hanumantha Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE: AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.26033 of 2015 BETWEEN:
K. Hanumantha Reddy,
S/o. Anumappa. ..Petitioner
AND
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
rep.by its Principal Secretary,
Department of Civil Supplies, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and 2 others. ..Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED:18.08.2015.
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO
1. Whether reports of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgments? YES/NO
2. Whether the copies of judgments may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals. YES/NO
3. Whether their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment ? YES/NO
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO Writ Petition No.26033 of 2015
ORDER :
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents.

¶3

The petitioner was appointed as fair price shop dealer of shop No.30 of Devireddypalli Village in Gummagatta Mandal of Ananthapur District. On 06.07.2015 the shop was inspected by the Mandal Revenue Inspector and other staff and based on his report, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the second respondentRevenue Divisional Officer, Kalyandurg, along with the order of suspension on 24.07.2015. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶4

A perusal of charges levelled against the petitioner indicates that they relate to variation in quantities, not maintaining the stock register and other records properly and running the shop through benami. The quantities which are found to be in variation are mostly within the permissible limits except kerosene oil, which is stated to be of 30 liters. The allegation of benami and not maintaining the records properly can be verified without suspending the authorization.

¶5

In the instant case, this Court feels that in view of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, the second respondent has not properly exercised the power of suspension pending enquiry and accordingly, the impugned order to the extent of suspending the authorization of petitioner is set aside giving liberty to the second respondent to conduct enquiry in respect of charges levelled against the petitioner after receiving the explanation from the petitioner and complete the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶6

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.

¶7

_______________________________ A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J

¶8

Date: 18.08.2015

¶9

Isn

K.Hanumantha Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Hanumantha 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana

P.Hemavathi, W/o.P.Subramanyam, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gangisetty Koteswara Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M.Chandra Rao, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Golla Raja Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Gontuvanipalem Girijana Quarry Workers Industrial Vs The Government of a.P.,Rep. by it Prl. Secretary