Allowed

JulmiOnaji v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC16 Dec 2021WP/34114/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the suspension of a fair price shop dealer license. The Court held that suspension based solely on the pendency of a case under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act violated principles of natural justice and established judicial precedents, setting aside the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order passed by the 3rd Respondent is set aside. Writ Petition is allowed without costs.

JulmiOnaji Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Speciat Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

THURSDAY,THE TWOTHOUSANDANDTWENTYONE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER^_-'

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOO KUMAR

¶5

Between:

¶6

IT ETI to NO: 1 40F 2021

¶7

{ylmiOnaji,^{S/o.Thukaram,} aged about 1?-^{v,9?rr,. Occ F.p.ShopDeater,} R/o.H.No.1-80/1 , Kaniki ViilffiKoutala District. vranoat, Kumurambheem Asifabad

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telanoana, Bep Oy its principal Secretary, Consumer Affairs. ^^{Food andcivit sup"pties,} _s"6iJiriai^{ouiijifi6, ilioul."oro} r s 2. rhe District coleitirr tc.g1, 1;;;;tilr,l"i,in.,ir,o"a oi.tr.i.t.

¶11

The Revenue Divisionat oiiic"l, raga.-;a-sli'riir,.ion, Adirabad District 4 The Deputv Tahsirdar (Enr). xibazn'agaitrlnirr, rr,i.,riirEleu-r"nr]i.uro District

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶13

Petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit iirea trerewiih,lhu Higr, coirt'ra-v o" pr"u"ua to issue a writ, order or direction more particularry one in the re of wRrr oF IVANDAIVU-s decraring the impugned oroer pasieo'by the 3rJ-Responount'rio" Proc. No. Cr27612021 , dated. 19i 112021 , p"rtrinini to the F.p. sr.,op r.',o-i+6gors of Kaniki Village, Koutala Mandal, Komurambheer- Rrlfrbrd Districti anJUoof<eA the 6 A Case by the 4th Respondent under Essentiar commodities Act in pendency of .^{investigationas iilegar,arbitrary, nuil and void and} viorative or pri,icipLs ot natural justice and also viorative of Articres 14, .r9 and 21 of the constitution otlnoia and the same may be set-aside. proc. No.c/276 12021 , dated. 1gt1112021 .

¶14

IA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶15

Petition under section 1s1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the Proceedings of 3rd Respondent vide proc. No. c127612021, dated. 19-11-2021 , pertaining to the F.p. shop No.2408013 of Kaniki Village, Koutala Mandal., KomurambheemAsifabad District, against the 6.A Case booked by the 4th Respondent under Essential Commodities Act in pending disposal of the main Writ Petition.

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI KALVALA SANJEEV Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

THE HO^{N'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR} u^{UT PETITIONNo.34114of 2o2L}

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

Heard lea ned^{counselfor the petitioner and learned} Government^{Plez der for civil supplies appearing for respondent} Nos.lto4andwththeirconsent,theWritPetitionistakenupfor hearing and^{disp)sal at the stage of admission'}

¶21

The petiti' 'ner^{contends that the impugnedorder dated} 79.ll .2021^{pass :d by the 3rd respondent suffersfrom irregularity} of more than ont^count.

¶22

Firstly, it s contended that^{the petitioner was issued with a} show cause not .ce on 17. 1 1^. 2O2l^{calling upon the petitioner to} offer his explan Ltion as to why^{the licence to run fair price shop} should not be^, ancelled and was asked^{to offer his expianation} within three d. */s.^{Even before the petitioner could frle his} obj ections / explt nation thereto within the time^{permittedunder the} show cause nol ce, the 3.d respondent has^passed the impugned order on 19.11. 202 1 itself. Thus, the impugned order is in clear violation of prin, iples of natural^justice.

¶23

Further, i is also contended that the only ground on which the respondent ruspended the licence granted to the petitioner for running a fair :rice shop is that a case is booked against the petitioner unde Section 6-A of Essential Commodities Act (for short 'the Act').

¶24

By drawir g attention to orders passed by this Court, in W.P. Nos.18818 of 2)79 and 18837 of 2019, the petitioner contends

¶25

that this Court had categorically held that initiation of proceedings under Section 6-.4 of the Act itself does not authorise the respondents like the 3d respondent to suspend the authOriSation of the fair price shop dealer,

¶26

On the basis of the above orders passed by this Court, it is contended that as the impugned order only refers to pendency of case under Section 6_A of the Act, the impugned action of the respondents is vitiated otherwise also. Learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies on the basis of Rules framed seeks for sustaining the impugned order.

¶27

I have taken note of the contentions urged.

¶28

As the impugned order passed only records the pendency of proceeding under Section 6-A of the Act as the basis for suspending the authorisation granted to the petitioner for running the fair price shop and in view of the orders of this Court which I have attained finality, the action of the respondents cannot be sustained.

¶29

9 . Having regard to the fact that the issue is no ionger res integra, following the orders of this Court in similar matters, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. The Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.

¶30

Consequently, miscellaneous^{petitions pending,if any, shall}

¶31

stand closed.

¶32

//TRUE^COPY// ^.,:3+'lN+ftFrylH SECTION.OYFICER

¶33

\ To, lrl:H';f*qli${l#,lpi,}H,}"frffir-[}ffi^il

¶34

,?#':!j%z*l)8fl

¶35

5 ,i3lf,:ldi'-13f;^{t""l.?iy..:lestateorreransanaat}

¶36

6 Hvderabad. [OUT]

¶37

1. Two CD^CoPies 8. One^{Spare CoPY}

¶38

t!.)" sm

HIGH^COURT

DATED:16/1212021

ORDER

WP.No'34114^{ot 2021}

¶43

HE s,?Ai 4
o
+(
cJ
2 7 DErl20?t l,
d'../J,
,.,r x ;z
r 5;19r..). a../

¶44

ALLOWING^{THE V IP} WITHOUT COSTS

¶45

JulmiOnaji v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

JulmiOnaji v. The State of Telangana

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

T. Naveen Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Anagha Educational Society and 11 others Vs Telangana State Sothern Power Distribution Company Limited and another

The Awami Association for Weaker Sections and Minorities Improvement Vs The Uion of India

Smt. Neelam Balamani Vs The State of Telangana

Duvvala Gandaiah alias Gundaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Bezawada Srinivasa Rao Vs Bezawada Janardhana Rao and 2 Others