Allowed

M. Narsappa, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Telangana HC15 Apr 2015WP/5032/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order disposed of four writ petitions challenging the suspension of fair price shop authorizations. The High Court held that despite a prior direction to supply commodities, there were no valid reasons to suspend authorizations due to alleged failure to remit amounts, especially given the petitioners' claim of being prevented from doing so by the authorities themselves. The suspension

What did the court decide?

The suspension orders dated 19.02.2015 were set aside, and the writ petitions were allowed.

M. Narsappa, Vs The State of Andhra… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶3

WEDNESDAY THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.5032 of 2015, WRIT PETITION No.5753 of 2015, WRIT PETITION No.4944 of 2015,

¶7

AND

¶8

WRIT PETITION No.5347 of 2015,

¶9

Between:

¶10

M.Narsappa and others

¶11

..... PETITIONERS

¶12

And

¶13

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

¶14

.....RESPONDENTS

¶15

The Court made the following:

¶16

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO

¶17

WRIT PETITION No.5032 of 2015, WRIT PETITION No.5753 of 2015, WRIT PETITION No.4944 of 2015,

¶18

AND

¶19

WRIT PETITION No.5347 of 2015.

¶20

COMMON ORDER:

¶21

Since in all these writ petitions, common issues arise for consideration, they are disposed of by a common order.

¶22

The petitioners and nine others filed W.P.No.16077 of 2014 alleging that though they have valid authorization, the revenue authorities have not been issuing essential commodities to their respective fair price shops. The learned single Judge of this Court by order, dated 05.08.2014 issued a direction to the respondents therein to supply stocks to the petitioners as long as the authorization of their fair price shops are valid and subsisting.

¶23

The present writ petitions are filed by the petitioners challenging the order of suspension-cum-show cause notice, dated 19.02.2015 whereunder the authorizations of their respective fair price shops have been suspended on the ground that they stayed away from the post of dealership of the fair price shops for the last six months and suddenly on 19.01.2015 they approached the Tahsildar, produced demand drafts for supply of essential commodities of their fair price shops.

¶24

It is mentioned in the impugned order that even after the direction of this Court in W.P.No.16077 of 2014, the petitioners have not been producing the demand drafts before the authorities for the purpose of issuing essential commodities to their respective fair price shops. It seems that the Tahsildr submitted a report to the SubCollector, Penukonda on 09.02.2015 stating that the petitioners have not been submitting the demand drafts for allotment of stocks and basing on the report, the Sub-Collector by order dated 19.02.2015 suspended the authorization of the petitioners.

¶25

In all the writ petitions, the respondents have filed counter-affidavits. The contention advanced in the counter-affidavits is that since the petitioners failed to remit the amounts by means of demand drafts for the purpose of issuing essential commodities since July, 2014, their authorization is liable to be suspended or cancelled and accordingly, on the report submitted by the Tahsildar, the authorizations of the petitioners were suspended by impugned order, dated 19.02.2015.

¶26

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the State of Andhra Pradesh.

¶27

The crucial aspect which requires consideration in the present writ petitions is that the petitioners approached this Court in the month of August, 2014 and filed W.P.No.16077 of 2014 contending therein that even though their authorizations were valid and subsisting, the revenue authorities were not issuing essential commodities of their respective shops. In the said writ petition, a direction was issued by the learned single Judge of this Court to issue essential commodities to the fair price shops of the petitioners and 9 others during the subsistence of the authorization.

¶28

From the facts and circumstances leading to filing of the aforementioned writ petitions, it can be understood that even though the petitioners were having valid

¶29

authorization, the revenue authorities refused to supply them the essential commodities. Now, again it is contended by the respondents in these writ petitions that in spite of a direction issued by the learned single Judge, the petitioners have not been remitting the amounts by means of demand drafts. This statement seems to be quite unconvincing; the reason being the petitioners who approached this Court by filing the writ petition for a direction to allot essential commodities to their respective authorities would under no circumstances refrain from remitting the amounts by means of demand drafts. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that even though they are willing to remit the amounts, the respondent-authorities have not been permitting to do so, can be accepted without any hesitation. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that there are no valid reasons for passing the impugned suspension orders-cum-show cause notices and the same are liable to be set aside in the present writ petitions.

¶30

Accordingly, the impugned orders, dated 19.02.2015 whereunder the authorization of the petitioners were suspended are hereby set aside and the writ petitions are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.

R.KANTHA RAO,J

Date:15.04.2015

Ccm

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶35

WRIT PETITION No.5032 of 2015, WRIT PETITION No.5753 of 2015, WRIT PETITION No.4944 of 2015,

¶36

AND

¶37

WRIT PETITION No.5347 of 2015,

¶38

Date:15.04.2015

¶39

ccm

M. Narsappa, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Narsappa, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

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

N.Venkatesulu, Vs The State of Andhra pradesh

M/s. Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Minerals, Vs The Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation Ltd.

Y. Vijaya Lakshmi, Vs The State of Andhra pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

Desu Swamulu Vs The State of A.P.

Vanipenta MaIlem Kondaiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K.Shailaja, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh