G. Adilakshmi v. State of Telangana And 2 Others
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court of Telangana held that no notice is required for closing an add-on fair price shop designated as an interregnum arrangement. While the petitioner had no vested right violated, the court ordered the respondents to return the amount paid for unsupplied stock.
What did the court decide?
The respondents are directed to return the amount of Rs. 12,336/- paid by the petitioner forthwith. No order as to costs.
What the court decided
[3230 ]
H|GH couRrt?T MSJtrEoF TELANGANA (SPecialOriginal Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, .'".T'ruOTHE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TTIOUSANDAND TWENTY TWO
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLESMT JUSTICELALITHAKANNEGANTI WRITPETITION NO:37500 0F 2022
Between:
F. P ShoPDealerof of Srinivas,Aged about 52 Years' G Adilakshmi,Wife lvlandal,tvledchal- Nagar,IDPL-ColonY,QutbullaPur F.P.3384149,Sumitra MalkaigiriDistrict.
...PETITIONER
AND
I State of Telangana,Representedby its Principal Secretary' Civil Supplies o"oitt."ntSecretariatHyderabad'
- 2 AssistantCivil Supplies oni"Lleli"'gar -"Malkajgrri Circle'f District' erozguda State Hyderabad of Telangana-^ 3 DistrictCivil Supply Officer '"f"f "JJ'f ...RESPONDENTS
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner has a vested right to receive notice for the closure of an add-on fair price shop under an interregnum arrangement?
Whether the respondents violated the petitioner's fundamental rights by failing to issue a notice before closing the shop?
What is the relief regarding the payment made by the petitioner which was not supplied as stock?
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
F. P Shop Dealer of Srinivas / G Adilakshmi / Mandal / tvledchal- Nagar
- respondent
State of Telangana
Coram
LALITHA KANNEGANTI
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Telangana HC
- Decided on
- · October
- Registered
- Case no.
- WP/37500/2022
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court