Allowed

D. Adinarayana, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC24 Jun 2016WP/20337/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Writ Petition challenged the cancellation of fair price shop authorization without a fresh enquiry after the higher authority remanded the matter. The Court held the earlier order no longer subsists and allowed the petitioner to continue as authorized dealer pending the fresh inquiry.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed; the petitioner is entitled to continue as authorized dealer till fresh orders are passed; no order as to costs.

D. Adinarayana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.20337 of 2016

¶3

ORDER

¶4

This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of 2^nd respondent in canceling the authorization of the petitioner vide proceedings dated 14.03.2016 without conducting re-enquiry as directed by the 4^th respondent vide proceedings dated 07.06.2016, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶5

It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as fair price shop dealer in respect of shop No.27, Gurrabadu Village, Guntakal Mandal, Ananthapur District. Alleging certain irregularities, the 2^nd respondent passed order dated 14.03.2016 canceling the fair price shop authorization of the petitioner without conducting enquiry and without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner. Challenging the same, petitioner filed W.P.No.11900 of 2016. By order dated 11.04.2016, the said writ petition was disposed of directing the petitioner to avail alternative remedy of appeal and in turn the 4^th respondent to dispose of either stay application or appeal itself on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of filing of appeal. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 4^th respondent, which was disposed of vide order dated 07.06.2016, operative portion of which reads as under;

¶6

“I am of the opinion that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapuramu, passed orders vide Rc.No.D1CS/3249/15 dated 14.03.2016 without verifying the actual facts and without conducting of personal enquiry. As such, in the instant case, it is evident that due procedure was not followed. Hence it is appropriate to remand the matter to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapuram/appointing authority to re-examine the case and pass appropriate orders afresh in the matter following the due procedure.”

¶7

The grievance of the petitioner is that even though the

¶8

4^th respondent remanded the matter for re-examination, no steps have been taken by the 2^nd respondent and his authorization has not been

¶9

restored.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.

¶11

The facts are not in dispute. In pursuance of the direction of this Court in W.P.No.11900 of 2016, dated 11.04.2016, the 4^th respondent disposed of the appeal by remanding the matter to the 2^nd respondent to re-examine the case by giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders afresh after following due procedure, but no orders have been passed till date. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the direction of 4^th respondent, the earlier order dated 14.03.2016 passed by the 2^nd respondent canceling the authorization of the petitioner no longer subsists. In those circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to continue as authorized dealer till the orders afresh passed by the 2^nd respondent in pursuance of the direction of the 4^th respondent dated 07.06.2016.

¶12

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶13

__________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J

¶14

24^th June, 2016 sur

D. Adinarayana, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D. Adinarayana, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saga Yettaiah Vs Ch. Ramesh

S.Vinay Kumar Vs The Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University

Koppineedi Swamy Ayyappa Bhanu Prakash Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Katasani Ramanamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B. Pushpavathamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P. Surya Prakasa Rao, Vs The Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Ltd.