Disposed

Kadambala Umamaheswari, v. State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Telangana HC8 Apr 2015WP/9754/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the suspension of the petitioner's authorisation as a fair price shop dealer. The Court directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to conduct an enquiry within two months.

What did the court decide?

The 2nd Respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer, Tekkali Division, Srikakulam district, directed to conduct enquiry and complete the same within 2 months.

Kadambala Umamaheswari, Vs State of Andhra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶2

Writ Petition No.9754 of 2015

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the State of Andhra Pradesh.

¶5

2. This writ petition is filed seeking writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings dated 31.03.2015 of the 2^nd respondent in suspending the petitioner’s authorisation of Fair Price Shop No.2 of Vajrapukotturu Village and Mandal, Srikakulam District, as illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction to the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents to continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer.

¶6

3. The fair price shop of the petitioner was inspected by the revenue authorities and allegedly certain variations were found in the stock apart from noticing certain other irregularities, which are mentioned in the impugned order. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that without taking into consideration the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the impugned order was passed on 31.03.2015 and the authorisation was suspended pending enquiry. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the variations pointed out in the inspection are permissible as per the Control Order. Learned Government Pleader for the civil Supplies on the other hand submits that the variations noticed during the course of inspection are not permissible.

¶7

4. In any event, since the suspension order was passed in contemplation of an enquiry, the 2^nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Tekkali Division, Srikakulam distrtict, is directed to conduct enquiry and complete the same within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶8

5. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Miscellaneous applications, if any, in this writ petition, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

R. KANTHA RAO, J

Date: 08.04.2015

BSS

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶13

¶14

Writ Petition No.9754 of 2015

¶15

Date: 08.04.2015

¶16

BSS

Kadambala Umamaheswari, v. State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kadambala Umamaheswari, v. 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

Jai Laxmi Metals Private Ltd., Vs The Central Power Distribution

P.V. Bhaskar Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Y.Narayanamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M. Paramesh Naik S/o. Thavere Naik. Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Kalpana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary

Kaviti Obaiah S/o Narasimhulu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh rep by its