WP/25191/2004 of N.Adilakshmi Vs The Joint Collector on 31 December 2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

WRIT PETITION NO : 25191 of 2004

Between:

N.Adilakshmi W/o.N.Ramaraju,Hindu, Fair Price Shop Dealer, Kalugodu Village, Gummagatta (M), Anantapur Dist.

..... PETITIONER

AND

1 The Joint Collector, Anantapur Dist., Anantapur.

2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram,Anantapur Dist.

.....RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may bepleased to issue writ, order, or direction more particularly one in the nature ofWrit of Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent remanding theappeal filed by the petitioner to the second respondent inR.C.No.K4/DMV/1404/2004 dated 02-12-2004 without assigning any reason,without setting aside the order of the second respondent passed inR.C.No.2654/2004/F dated 01-11-2004 as illegal, unjust, unsustainable andcontrary to the Clause 17(ii) of the A.P. Scheduled Commodities (Regulation ofDistribution by Card System) Order 1973.

Counsel for the Petitioner: KOTHAPALLI RAM MOHAN CHOWDARY

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

The Court at the stage of admission made the following ORDER:

The authorization of the petitioner was suspended by the secondrespondent through his order dated 01.11.2004. Aggrieved thereby, thepetitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent. Through an orderdated 02.12.2004, the first respondent stayed the operation of the order passedby the second respondent and directed him to pass the orders in the mainproceedings. The same is challenged in this writ petition.

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

This Court does not find any detriment that can be said to have beensuffered by the petitioner. It is one of the rare cases where the appellateauthority had considered the matter objectively and stayed the operation of theorder of suspension passed against the petitioner. The grievance of thepetitioner appears to be that the first respondent did not set aside the order ofsuspension. From the point of view of the petitioner, it makes little differencewhether the order of suspension is stayed or set aside as long as she isentitled to function as the dealer. This Court does not find any basis to entertainthe writ petition.

Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. It is made clear that the secondrespondent shall proceed with the matter only after issuing a show cause noticeto the petitioner and after considering her explanation properly, if necessary bygiving an opportunity of being heard to her. No permanent dealer shall beappointed in the meanwhile. There shall be no order as to costs.

-----------------------

Note:

Issue CC in three days.

(BO)

ksld

To

1 The Joint Collector Anantapur District, Anantapur.

2 The Revenue Divisional Officer Dharmavaram,Anantapur Dist.

3 Two CCs. to the G.P. for Civil Supplies, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad(OUT).

4 Two CD copies.