Telangana High Court
WP/28897/2009 of D. Venkat Ramulu, Vs The Joint Collector, on 31 December 2009
SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.28897 of 2009 Date:31.12.2009 Between: D. Venkat Ramulu.. ..... PETITIONER AND The Joint Collector and others. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.28897 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is kerosene
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA
WRIT PETITION No.28897 of 2009
Date:31.12.2009
Between:D. Venkat Ramulu..
ANDThe Joint Collector and others.
..... PETITIONER
.....RESPONDENTS
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADAWRIT PETITION No.28897 of 2009
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.
ORDER:
The petitioner is kerosene dealer and on the ground that he hascommitted certain irregularities, an enquiry under Section 6-A of theEssential Commodities Act, 1955, was initiated and the stock wasseized.
The disciplinary authority - Joint Collector, first respondent herein, aftercompletion of the enquiry, found certain irregularities and accordinglyordered confiscation of 50% of seized kerosene, vide order dated31.12.2005. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the appellateauthority - District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, by filing anappeal. The appellate authority concurred with the findings of thedisciplinary authority, however, reduced the quantity of confiscation from50% to 25% of seized stock and also ordered refund of the same, videjudgment dated 14.02.2007 in Crl.A.No.27 of 2006.
The grievance of the petitioner is that though the appellateauthority ordered for refund of 25% of seized stock, it is not beingimplemented and therefore, he filed the present writ petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learnedGovernment Pleader appearing for the respondents.
From a perusal of the judgment of the appellate authority, it is seenthat the quantity of confiscation of 50% of seized stock as ordered by thedisciplinary authority is reduced to 25%. Therefore, the disciplinary authority ought to have implemented the same and ordered for releaseof balance 25% of seized stock.
In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is allowed at the stage ofadmission directing the first respondent to release 25% of seized stockat the earliest. No costs.
____________________________
(GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J)
31[st ]December, 2009GHN