Telangana High Court
WP/24411/2004 of V. Uma Devi, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer, Mulugu, on 30 December 2004
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 24411 of 2004 Between: V.Uma Devi, W/o.Papachary, age.27 yrs, Occ: Fair price shop
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO : 24411 of 2004
Between:
V.Uma Devi,
W/o.Papachary, age.27 yrs,
Occ: Fair price shop dealer, shop No.2,
R/o.Chainthakunta Ramaiahpally,
Chityal Mandal,
Warangal District.
..... PETITIONER
AND
1. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Mulugu, Warangal District.
2. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Chityal, Warangal District.
3. The Joint Collector, Warangal, Warangal District.
.....RESPONDENT(S)
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 declaring the order, dated 26.11.2004 in proceedings No.1/3799/2004
passed by the 1[st] respondent and also to declare the action of the 3[rd] respondent innot passing an order on the stay petition filed along with the appeal against order,dated 26.11.2004 passed by the 1[st] respondent as illegal, arbitrary and to pass suchother necessary order or orders as this Honourable Court deem fit and proper in thecircumstances of the case.
Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.PRABHAKAR RAOCounsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES
The Court, at the stage of admission, 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.
ORDER:
Petitioner is a fair price shop dealer. Her authorization was suspended by the 1[st]respondent through order, dated 26.11.2004. The allegation against the petitioner isthat her husband is running the shop on behalf of her and that he received 70 Qtls ofrice pertaining to SGRY from stage-II MLS point, through a contractor, in the name ofthe petitioner. It was alleged that the receipt of rice was with a view to assist thepersons concerned for diversion of the rice into black market. Petitioner preferred anappeal before the 3[rd] respondent together with an application for grant of stay.
Unless the application for stay is disposed of within reasonable time, the verypurpose of preferring the appeal is likely to be defeated. The authorization of thepetitioner was suspended on the allegation that her husband received 70 Qtls ofSGRY rice from a transport contractor, in the name of the petitioner. It is not allegedthat the petitioner had diverted the same to black market. Petitioner has placedbefore this Court copy of an order of allotment issued by the A.P. State CivilSupplies Corporation for certain quantity of rice. It is not possible, at this stage, torecord any finding as to the actual quantity of rice as well as the nature of it.
One fact, which weighs with this Court is that even according to the order ofsuspension, the rice, referred to above, is said to have been received from a properand legal source, namely, the contractor. The rice was found to be with thepetitioner. The allegation is that the rice was stored ‘with an intention to assist thepersons concerned for diversion of the rice into black market’. This allegation is asvague as it could be.
For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the petitioner shall be entitled to continue as dealer, and the order of suspension shall standstayed, till the 1[st] respondent passes orders either in the appeal or in the staypetition. No order as to costs.
______________________
L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J
Dated : 30[th] December, 2004
Note: Furnish copy by 31.12.2004.
(B/o)
TS
To
1. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Mulugu, Warangal District.
2. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Chityal, Warangal District.
3. The Joint Collector, Warangal, Warangal District.
4 2 CCs to the Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, High Court Buildings,Hyderabad. (OUT)
5 2CD copies.