Dismissed

Sri Nava Bharathi-Ii Mahila Sangham v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Jan 2024WP/14853/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed the petitioner's writ petition as infructuous because the authorization previously granted to the respondent was expired. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to question any future authorization issued to others.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as infructuous. Liberty granted to question future authorizations issued by respondents.

Sri Nava Bharathi-Ii Mahila Sangham Vs The State of… — Consumer Protection | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³³⁰² ]

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 14853 OF²⁰²³

¶7

Between:

¶8

Sri Nava Bharathi-ll Mahila Sangham,^{represented by its President,} B. Kavitha Wo. Chandra Shekar, Age. 38^{Years, Fair Price Shop No.} 2710002, Rl/o. Nagulapet Village, Korutla^{Proper and Mandal, Jagtial District.}

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, represented by^{its Principal Secret} ry^{to the} Consumer Affairs, Food and Clvil^{Supplies, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.}

¶12

The Revenue Divisional Officer,^{Korutla Division, Korutla, Jagtial District.} 3. The District Collector, Jagtial District,^Jagtial.

¶13

Tahsildar, Korutla Mandal, Korutla Proper^{and Mandal'Jagtial District.}

¶14

Saraswathi Mahila Podupu Sangam,^{representedby its presidentJoginpally} Latha Wo. Joginpally Bhoom^{Rao, Age.38 Years, Fl/o. NagulapetVillage'} Korutla Proper and Mandal, Jagtial^District.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 ol lhe^{Constitutionof lndiapraying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith, the High Court may be} pleased to issue an order or direction more^{particularly one in the natureof writ} of Mandamus or any other appropriate^{writ order or direction declaring the action} of the respondent No. 2, in^{issuing the ordersin proceedingsNo. RDOKTL-} GOCS(FPlCyg/2023-G-SECTION-RDO^{dated 1810412023,throughwhich} appointing the respondent No.5,^{as Fair Price Shop Dealer of shop No'} 271O0O2, of Nagulapet village,^{without consideringthe application of the} petitioner dated 01104t2023, is nothing but^{arbitrary, illegal, null and void and} violative of^principles of natural^{justiceand also violative of articles14, 19 and 21} of the constitution of lndia.^{consequentlyset asidethe orders passedby the} respondent No. 2 in Proc.^{No. RDOKTL-GOCS(FP|Cy9/2023-G-SECTION-RDO} dated 18t04t2023, through^{which appointing the respondent No. 5, as Fair Price}

¶17

Shop Dealer of s rop No. 2710002, of Nagulapet^{Village,thereby direct the} respondent No. 1l to consider the representation^{of the petitionerdated} O1tO4l2O23, for ap,pointing the^{petitioner sangam as fair price shop dealerof} shop No. 271O0O2, situated at Nagulapet^{Village, Korutla Mandal,Jagtial District'} lA NO: 1 oF 2023

¶18

Petition und,-'r Section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filec in support^{of the petition,the HighCourt may be pleased to} suspend the orders^{passedby the respondent No. 2 in Proc. No' RDOKTL-} GOCS(FPlCyg/2Oil3-G-SECTION-RDO dated^{18-04-2023,throughwhich} appointing the re!;pondent No. 5,^{as Fair Price Shop Dealer of shopNo.} 271OOO2, of Nagulapet Village, thereby^{directthe respondent No.2 to consider} the representatior of the^petitioner dated^{01-04-2O23, for appointing the} petitioner sangam as fair price shop dealer of shop No.^{2710002,situated at} Nagulapet Village, Korutla Mandal,^{JagtialDistrict}

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. K.^VENUMADHAV

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.1: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES}

¶21

Counsel for the Rr:spondent^{Nos.2to4:GP FOR REVENUE}

¶22

Counse! for the Rr:spondent^{No.5: None Appeared}

¶23

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶24

THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE K.SARATH

¶25

TVRIT PETITION No. 148 53 of2o23

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the authorization of the respondent No.5 was expired and the Writ petition has become infructuous and if any authorization is given to others by the respondents, the petitioner requested to grant liberty to question the same as per law.

¶28

Recording the aforementioned submission, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous and granted Iiberty as sought for. There shall be no order as to COStS.

¶29

J As sequel to it, Miscellaneous petitions, if any

¶30

pending, shall starrd closed.

¶31

SD/-MOHD. ISMAIL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPYII

SECTION OFFICER

To,

Two CCs to GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES ,Hioh Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] 2. Two CCs to GP FOR REVi:NUE ,High Court for the State of Telangana,at Hyderabad [OUT] 3. One CC to SRl. K, VENUTUADHAV, Advocate tOpUCI 4. Two CD Copies BM GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:10/01/ 024

ORDER

ot 1 L4
o
i' t-
iJ :_, c*
tac
G,o
\ d,
q"
J I *

¶40

WP.No.14853 t 2023

¶41

DISMISSING T E WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTOUS WITHOUT C CSTS

¶42

L
e.L
&Yi
6w

Sri Nava Bharathi-Ii Mahila Sangham v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Nava Bharathi-Ii Mahila Sangham v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sama Raji Reddy, Vs The District Panchayath Officer

M. Krishnamachary Vs The Tahsildar

Konakati Shankar Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Pedda Mallaiah, Vs State of Telangana

The Revenue Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

Bonagiri Chandra Reddy Vs The District Collector