Dismissed

Smt.v.Reddamma, v. Smt.a.Gangulamma

Telangana HC16 Jun 2016WA/1043/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Acting Chief Justice and Justice P. Naveen Rao dismissed the Writ Appeal filed by Smt V Reddamma challenging the appointment of Smt A Gangulamma as a fair price shop dealer. The court rejected a new contention regarding ration card demographics as it was raised for the first time. The appointment was found not erroneous despite the petitioner not belonging to the same hamlet.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal and miscellaneous petitions dismissed; no costs awarded.

Smt.v.Reddamma, Vs Smt.a.Gangulamma — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B.BHOSALE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶2

WRIT APPEAL No.1043 of 2015

¶3

Date: 16-6-2016

¶4

Between: Smt V Reddamma, W/o V Ramachandra naidu R/o Peddakammapalle hamlet of Thimmapuram village, K V Palle mandal, Chittoor district

¶5

…..Appellant

¶6

and Smt A Gangulamma W/o A Nagaraja R/o Kondakinda Harijanwada hamlet of Thimmapuram village, K V Palle mandal, Chittoor district and others

¶7

…..Respondents

¶8

The Court made the following: HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND

¶9

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶10

WRIT APPEAL No.1043 of 2015

¶11

PC: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Naveen Rao)

¶12

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

2. The appellant is 5^th respondent in the writ petition. Parties are referred as arrayed in the writ petition. The 5^th respondent was granted fair price shop in Kondakinda Harijanwada, hamlet of Thimmapuram village, K.V.Palle mandal, Chittoor district. The petitioner challenges the said appointment in the writ petition.

¶14

3. The facts as noted in the order of learned single Judge would disclose that by proceedings dated 11.6.2003,

¶15

5^th respondent was appointed as fair price shop dealer. Same was challenged in appeal by the petitioner. By order dated 29.10.2003, 2^nd respondent allowed the said appeal. 2^nd respondent held that 5^th respondent is resident of Peddakammapalle village which is 2 KMs away from the village in which fair price shop is located. Matter was remanded to 3^rd respondent for fresh consideration. In the revision filed by the 5^th respondent, the revisional authority concurred with the opinion of 2^nd respondent. He also observed that it would be more appropriate if the petitioner was appointed as he is more qualified. Against the said order, 5^th respondent filed W P No. 19492 of 2007. The observations in the order of revision to the extent of holding that the petitioner is more qualified for being appointed were set aside. Consequently, proceedings dated 26.3.2008 were issued once again appointing 5^th respondent.

¶16

4. It is not in dispute that the 5^th respondent do not belong to Kondakinda Harijanwada, hamlet of Timmapuram village and is resident of Peddakammapalle. As noticed by the learned single Judge, finding of the District Collector in proceedings dated 3.9.2007 is categorical that the 5^th respondent do not belong to Kondakinda Harijanwada where fair price shop is located. For the first time in the writ appeal, 5^th respondent seeks to contend that though fair price

¶17

shop is located in Kondakinda Harijanwada, majority of the ration cards belong to Peddakammapalle village and, therefore, person belonging to Peddakammapalle village ought have been appointed. Since, 5^th respondent did not raise this contention in the writ petition, he cannot be permitted to raise such a contention for the first time in the writ appeal. Be that as it may, admittedly, fair price shop is located in Kondakinda Harijanwada and petitioner do not belong to that hamlet. Therefore, we do not see any error in the decision arrived at by the learned single Judge. Accordingly, writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand dismissed.

¶18

___________________________ DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ

¶19

___________________________ P.NAVEEN RAO, J

¶20

Date:16.6.2016 tvk

¶21

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B.BHOSALE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶22

WRIT APPEAL No.1043 of 2015

¶23

Date: 16.6.2016

¶24

tvk

Smt.v.Reddamma, v. Smt.a.Gangulamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.v.Reddamma, v. Smt.a.Gangulamma

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

Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd., Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

T.Sai Abhishekh, S/o Shantappa., Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by its

Guguloth Ravi Vs The State of Telangana

St. Marys College of Engineering and Technology Vs The Union of India

Sri Sai Residency Flat Owners Welfare Association Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by Principal

J.MahaLakshmamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh