Dismissed

Teja Mahila Sakthi Sangham, Represented by its v. The Joint Collector

Telangana HC22 Jan 2015WP/27693/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of a fair price shop authorization. The court held that an appeal lay under Clause 20 of the Control Order, 2008, and directed the petitioner to utilize this alternative remedy.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file an appeal before the appellate authority within one month.

Teja Mahila Sakthi Sangham, Represented by its Vs The… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.27693 of 2008

¶3

ORDER

¶4

The present writ petition challenges to the order of the second respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer vide D.Dis.No.E/2496/2008 dated 29.11.2008.

¶5

2. Heard Sri N. Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for respondents.

¶6

3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajahmundry, the second respondent herein, issued a show cause notice vide reference No.E/2496/2008 dated 06.08.2008, asking the petitioner to show cause as to why the fair price shop authorization should not be cancelled. In response to the said show cause notice, the petitioner herein submitted an explanation. Then, the Revenue Divisional Officer, by virtue of an order vide proceedings D.Dis.No.E/2496/2008 dated 29.11.2008, cancelled the authorization of the petitioner herein as per the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001. Challenging the validity of the said order, the present writ petition came to be filed.

¶7

4. At the hearing, a preliminary objection is raised by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition before this Court in view of the availability of alternative remedy of appeal to the Joint Collector under the Control Order.

¶8

5. In the present writ petition, this Court issued rule nisi on

¶9

22.12.2008 and refused to grant interim order.

¶10

6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that subsequent to the impugned cancellation order, the authorities have made incharge arrangements. It is further submitted that the variations pointed out are only small variations and the second respondent ought not to have resorted to the impugned order of cancellation of authorization. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the mediator’s report also, there is no mention with regard to the variations.

¶11

7. It is to be noted that, as per Clause 20 of Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008, the impugned order is appealable before the Collector (CS). Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to relegate the petitioner herein to the said alternative remedy of appeal under Clause 20 of the Control Order, 2008.

¶12

8. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to file an appeal before the appellate authority against the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer vide proceedings D.Dis.No.E/2496/2008 dated 29.11.2008, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and if such an appeal is filed within the time stipulated above, the appellate authority shall consider the same after giving notice and opportunity of being heard to the petitioner herein and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of two months thereafter. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶13

_______________ A.V.SESHA SAI, J

¶14

22^nd January, 2015

¶15

Teja Mahila Sakthi Sangham, Represented by its v. The Joint Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Teja Mahila Sakthi Sangham, Represented by its v. The Joint Collector

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

M/s. G.K. Rao and Co., Sri Cini corporation, Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India

Muntha Narasimha Vs The Commissioner

Pilla Dasaradhi Narasimha Rao Vs The Asst. Director of Mines and Geology

M/s. New Brigades Bar and Resataurant Vs The Commissioner of Police

Smt. G. Vinitha Reddy W/o G. Saday Veer Reddy Vs Municipal Corportion of Hyderabad repby Commissioner

G. Krishna S/o Sri Surya Rao Vs Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corpn., Ltd.