Allowed

Jangam Amulya v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC14 Mar 2022WP/11438/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition filed by an Fair Price Shop Dealer challenging an order that deputed him as incharge without considering his reply. The court held the action violated natural justice and constitutional rights, set aside the order, and remanded it to the Tahsildar.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh orders within four weeks.

Jangam Amulya Vs The State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAO

¶2

(Specia I Original Jurisd iction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF I,4ARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRES ENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 1'1438 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

Jangam Amulya, W/o. Veeresha Lingam, aged about 37 years, Occ.F.P.Shop Dealer, R/o.H.No.2-71, Kankurthi Village, Damargidda (M), Narayanapet District. (Old Mahaboobnagar Dist.)

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 . The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies, Secretariat building, Hyderabad T.S

¶12

The District Civil Supplies Officer, Narayanapet District.

¶13

The Revenue Divisional officer, Narayanapet, Narayanapet District.

¶14

The Tahsildar, Damaragidda Mandal, Narayanapet District.

¶15

s. The Deputy Tahsildar^(Enf), Damarasidda N,4andal, NarayanaollPill"S, oa*r,

¶16

Petition under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be^pleased to issue any order or direction writ or writs more^particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the 4rr' respondent issued impugned orcler no.A/15/202'1 dt. 19-02-2022 incharge order of^petitioner FP Shop No.40040'13 Kankurhty vrllage, Damaragidda Mandal, Narayanapel district to the other dealer without considering reply dt. 18-02-2022 submilled by the^petitioner is illegal arbitrary and violations of princlples of natural iustice and also violative of Articles^'14, 19 and 2'1 of the Constitution of lndia, the same maybe set aside. Consequently direct the^respondents to continue the^petitioner as a FP Shop Dealer of Shop No.4604013 Kankurthi^village by suspending the Proceedings No.A/15/2021, d1j9-02-2022 issued by the^4rt' respondent

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances^{stated in the} affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to^{direct the} respondents to continue the^petitioner as a FP Shop Dealer of^{ShopNo.4604013} Kankurthi village by suspending the Proceedings No.AJ'15l2021,^{dt.19-02-2022issued} by the 4th respondent and equity

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI KALVALA SANJEEV

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR^{CIVIL SUPPLIES}

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

1 I

¶23

THE HO.I'BLE SRI IUSTICE A.ABHISHEK I(EDDY

¶24

A'RIT PETITION No.11438 <.tf 2022

¶25

oRDEII:

¶26

Ileard the l( (rrned cor.rrrsel for the pt'titior-rt'r anr.l the lcatneti Covemnlr-'nt I'lr..r,-lr r tor Civil Su1'r;'rlis5 appearing for the respotrtlerrts lVith thcir corlserlt, I^-re \rit l)ctition rs rlisposerl of at tht'st;lge^()f arlrlissiot-t itsclf.

¶27

This writ peti ,ion is filed seeking a writ of t andn nts cleclaring the order dated 19.02.t022, passed by the respondent No.4, deputing the Damaragidda Fair l'rice Shop Dealer as incharge of the petitiouer's Fair Price Shop No.4604i t3, as illegal and arbitrarv

¶28

Learnecl coun;el for the petitioner has statec-l tl-rat pursuar-rt to the Slrow, Car.rsc Notict tlaterl 17.02.2022 issut't1 [-',v the rcsi.ontlcnt No.4 (r ll Iahsiltlar, D.rntar.rr irlria, tl-re pretitioner has submittt'tl hcr rt'pl'',' 18.02.2022. But, tlrc respontlr-nt No.-{, rvithout torrsirit'ritrg the said rt'pl1', has passt'rl tht' inr[ru ittt'rl ortlt't

¶29

l) A lrc'rusal of l-re impugned ot'cie'r clearlv shows that the same has been passecl n,ithout considerirrg the reply of the petitior-rer

¶30

Having regar( to the above, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remandecl rack to the respondent No.4 for passir-rg orclers afresh,

¶31

¶32

¶33

in accorclance with lan', as expetlitiouslv^as possible, preferal,lv,^withirra periori clf four w'r:eks fr'om the.'latc^c', I rcceipl e[ a ccr1,1 of this^{ortle r, clulI} takirrg into co trsiriera tiot't the rcplv filecl t v tht. pr'titior-ror^{on .1ti.02.2022.I ill} such time the iinal orrlcrs art' passeci, the^{resl',orrclentssl'r.rll strPPlvthe} csscntial comn-toclitir's to thc pt'titioncr,

¶34

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed

¶35

The miscellaneous petitions Pending, if^any ,^{shallstandclosed.}

¶36

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶37

SdIV.KAVITHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICE

To 1. The Princioal Secretarv, Consumer^{Affairs,Food and CivilSupplies' Stateof} Telanoana, Secretariai^{buildinq, HyderabadT.S}

¶42

1. The DJstrict Civil Supplies^{Officer.Na'ayanapetDislrrct.} 3. The Revenue Divisibnat^{officer, Narayanapet, Narayanapet District} 4. Tne Tahsildar. Damaragidda^{ManoalNaraya"apet Drslrict} 5. Th; Deoutv Tahsrldar^{(Ent), Dama'aqrdoaN,4andalNarayanapet D'str ct} 6. One Ci to'Sfl^{KalvalaSalleev.Aovocate} [OPUCj 7 iwo CCs to GP for Civil^{SJppliesHrgh Court for the State of Telanganaat} Hydera bad [OUT]

¶43

8 Two CD Copies

¶44

9 One Spare Copy

]\NX

HIGH COUR T

DATED:141C312022

. 1r'c o,;./d).\
J
/;
1i t'/Afi 2Dz
{/B.,
.i
)t: ^-
\ .-...

¶50

ORDER

¶51

WP.No.11438 of 2022

¶52

ALLOWIN 3 THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS.

¶53

\
\r.,\r\ !- q--
\a -,ll{}

Jangam Amulya v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jangam Amulya 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Fahmeeda Begum Vs The State of Telangana 3 others

V. Satyavardhan Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Somisetty Shankaraiah Vs Smt.Bharati Hollikeri, IAS

Tarimela Vijay Kumar Vs M. Raghunandan Rao

M/s. Madhukunj Flat Occupants Welfare Association Vs The State of Telangana, And 5 Others

Appula Pentamma Vs State of Telangana