Telangana High Court
WP/27621/2005 of Pulipati Leela Vs The Joint Collector, Prakasam District on 27 December 2005
SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH W.P.NO.27621 OF 2005 Dt.27.12.2005 Between: Pullipati Leela … Petitioner And The Joint Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole and 2 others. … Respondents ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Civil
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH
W.P.NO.27621 OF 2005
Dt.27.12.2005
Between:
Pullipati Leela
… Petitioner
AndThe Joint Collector, Prakasam District,Ongole and 2 others. … Respondents
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:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned GovernmentPleader for Civil Supplies for respondents 1 and 2 and the learnedcounsel appearing on behalf of the 3[rd] respondent.
As against the notification calling for applications for appointment offair price shop dealer of Korrapativaripalem Village under ScheduledCaste Women category, the petitioner as well as the 3[rd] respondenthave applied for their appointment as permanent dealer. Accordingly,interviews were held on 24.10.2005 and the petitioner was appointedas fair price shop dealer of the said village by the Revenue DivisionalOfficer, Kandukur, by order dated 26.10.2005. It is stated that thepetitioner complied with all the formalities by depositing necessaryamounts and the authorization fee. Aggrieved by the same, the 3[rd]
respondent filed an appeal before the Joint Collector, Ongole. It isalso stated that caveat petition was also filed by the petitioner and thematter underwent adjournments for two times and on the third timewithout hearing the petitioner the Joint Collector granted stay of theoperation of the appointment of the petitioner by order dated21.12.2005. Questioning the said action of the first respondent, thiswrit petition has been filed.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of thee case, I am ofthe opinion that if the appointment of the petitioner is illegal andcontrary to the provisions of law, it is for the appellate authority toconsider and pass final orders. But during the pendency of theappeal with regard to the appointment of the dealership of the fairprice shop, there cannot be any justification in granting stay of theappointment of the petitioner, as the appellant before the appellateauthority is not going to get any benefit or cannot have any grievanceto permit the petitioner to continue as fair price shop till the appeal isdisposed of. In a given case only where it is not desirable to distributeessential commodities and where there are grave and seriousirregularities have been committed, the dealership can be suspendedor stay may be granted. But stay may not be granted in a routinemanner. Therefore, the order of the first respondent dated 21.12.2005in granting stay of the operation of the order of the RevenueDivisional Officer, Kandukur, is set aside. The first respondent isdirected to dispose of the appeal itself after giving reasonableopportunity to the petitioner as well as the 3[rd] respondent. Till thenthe petitioner shall be permitted to distribute essential commodities.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
__________________
(V.ESWARAIAH, J.)
27.12.2005
Note: Issue copy by tomorrow.
B.O.
kpr