Telangana High Court
WP/27535/2007 of Smt.Y.Saraswathi, Vs The District Collector (CS) on 24 December 2007
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTYFOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND SEVEN P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA * * * WRIT PETITION No.27535 of 2007 Between: Smt. Y. Saraswathi … Petitioner Versus
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE TWENTYFOURTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND SEVEN
P R E S E N T
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA* * *
WRIT PETITION No.27535 of 2007
Between:
Smt. Y. Saraswathi … Petitioner
Versus
The District Collector,Kurnool,Kurnool district & Ors. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri N. RAVI PRASAD (6069)
Counsel for the Respondents: GOVT.PLEADER FOR CIVILSUPPLIES
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA
* * *
WRIT PETITION No.27353 of 2007
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R :
The matter is coming up ‘for admission’.
2. Heard both the counsel.
3. The writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus, declaring theorder passed by the third respondent vide ProceedingsRC.A.No.2490/2007, dated 06-12-2008 as well as the show causenotice issued by the third respondent as illegal, arbitrary,unconstitutional and consequently to set aside both show causenotice as well as order vide Proceedings RC.A.No.2490/2007 dated06-12-2007 of suspending the petitioner as Fair Price Shop Dealerfor Servel village, Nandyal Mandal, Kurnool district and to pass suchother suitable orders as this Court may deems fit and proper in thecircumstances of the case.
4. Several contentions had been advanced by Sri N.Ravi Prasad, the counsel representing the writ petitioner and primafacie it appears that the impugned order is not sustainable. However,this Court is not inclined to express any opinion touching themerits and demerits of the matter for the reason that it is stated thatthe said order already had been challenged by way of appeal and the same is said to be pending before the second respondent.
5. In view of the same, let the second respondent – Joint Collector, Kurnool, Kunrool district dispose of the appeal itself and passappropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within aperiod of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order andtill then, the impugned proceeding is suspended.
6. The writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. No costs.
JUSTICE P . S .
NARAYANA .
24/12/2007.
NB:
1) Operative Portion of the Orderby wire at party’s costs.by wire at party’s costs.
2) Furnish CC of the Order today itself.B/o. ISLB/o. ISL