Telangana High Court
WP/24968/2004 of D. Prasad S/o Chinna Ramanna , Chinna Ramudu Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer, on 31 December 2004
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 24968 of 2004 Between: D. Prasad S/o Chinna Ramanna @ Chinna Ramudu, Fair Price Shop
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 MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO : 24968 of 2004
Between:
D. Prasad S/o Chinna Ramanna @ Chinna Ramudu, Fair Price Shop Dealer, Madinenidoddi Vilalge, Peapully Mandal, Kurnool District
..... PETITIONER
AND
1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool.
2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Peapully Mandal, Kurnool District.
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased toissue a Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ ofMandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or Direction of the like nature: A)Declaring that the action of the 1st respondent in issuing the impugned proceedingsin Rc. No. B 1307/2004 dt 12-10-2004 suspending the petitioner's Fair Price ShopDealership situated at Mandoddi Village, Peapully Mandal as illegal, arbitrary voidab initio and without jurisdiction; B) consequently direct the respondents herein tocontinue the petitioner as Fair Price Shop Dealer situated at mandoddi Village,Peaupally Mandal, Kurnool District.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.E.AJAY REDDY
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES
The Court made the following:
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.
ORAL ORDER:
The petitioner was appointed as Fair Price Shop Dealer forMadinenidoddi village of Kurnool District. His authorization wassuspended by the 1[st] respondent through his order, dated12.10.2004. Aggrieved thereby, he claims to have preferred anappeal before the Joint Collector with an application for grant of stay.It is represented that the appellate authority has not passed anyorders either in the appeal or in the stay petition.
It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitionerthat even after the order of suspension, dated 12.10.2004, thepetitioner was continued as dealer for the month of November, 2004and steps are now being taken to make alternative arrangements.Heard the learned Government Pleader for Civil supplies.
This Court is not inclined to go into the merits or otherwise allegationsof the petitioner. He has already availed the remedy of appeal beforethe 1[st] respondent. The application filed by the petitioner is said to bestill pending. It is stated that the petitioner is continued as dealer evenafter the order of suspension for the month of November, 2004. If thatbe so, the situation does not get worse on account of the pendencyof the application for stay before the Joint Collector.
Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing that in case the petitioner was continued as dealer for the month of November, 2004,he shall be permitted to continue as such till the appellate authoritydisposes of the appeal. There shall be no order as to costs.
_________________________
(L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.)
31[st] December, 2004.
To
1. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool.
2. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Peapully Mandal, Kurnool District.
3. Two CCs to G.P. for Civil Supplies, High court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT)Hyderabad (OUT)
4. Two CD copies.
Note: Furnish copy by tomorrow
(b/o)
bcj