Telangana High Court
WP/24198/2004 of A. Nageswara Naidu, Vs The Jt. Collector, on 28 December 2004
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 24198 of 2004 Between: A . Nageswara Naidu, S/o. Thimmaiah, R/o. Yenaguntla
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO : 24198 of 2004
Between:
A. Nageswara Naidu, S/o. Thimmaiah, R/o. Yenaguntla Village, Dhone Taluk, Kurnool District.
AND
..... PETITIONER
1 The Joint Collector, Kurnool District, Kurnool.
2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool, Kurnool District.
3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Dhone, 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 Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ ofMandamus, to declare the action of the 1st respondent in referring the matter to the3[rd] respondent to submit further report without hearing the stay petition filed alongwith the appeal is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the orders passed by this Hon'bleCourt in W.P.No.21580/2004 and consequently set aside the proceedings of the 2[nd]respondent Rc.No.B/1496/2004, dt.07.11.2004.Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.J.JANAKIRAMI REDDYCounsel 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 is a Fair Price Shop dealer. The second respondent suspended theauthorization of the petitioner through proceedings dated 7-11-2004. Aggrievedthereby the petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent along with anapplication for stay. Alleging that the first respondent has not passed any orders inthe stay application, the petitioner filed W.P.No.21580 of 2004. It was disposed of on 25-11-2004 directing that if no alternative arrangement has been made, thepetitioner shall be continued as dealer and that the first respondent shall passappropriate orders on the stay petition, within two weeks from the date of the receiptof the order.
The petitioner states that the benefit of the order in the writ petition could not beavailed by him since the respondents have made alternative arrangement. It is alsostated that the first respondent issued notice fixing 14-12-2004 as date of hearingand on that day when the petitioner appeared through a counsel, the first respondentadjourned the matter stating that a report is called for from the Mandal RevenueOfficer, the third respondent herein. No subsequent date is said to have been given.In this background, the petitioner seeks appropriate directions.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for CivilSupplies.
This court did not interfere with the order of suspension, when the petitioner filedW.P.No.21580 of 2004 since the first respondent was yet to take up the applicationfor stay. The petitioner states that on 14-12-2004 the first respondent passed anorder calling for the report from the third respondent. It needs to be observed that theorder of suspension itself was based on the report submitted by the MandalRevenue Officer, and if his remarks are to be called for at this stage, that too for thedisposal of the application for stay, the very purpose would be defeated.
One basic infirmity in the order of suspension is that it is not directed as a measureof pending enquiry and it is not preceded by any notice. Hence, it is violative ofClause 5(4) of the A.P. State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001. For theforegoing reasons, the order of suspension dated 7-12-2004 shall remain stayed tillthe first respondent dispose of the appeal, and the petitioner shall be entitled tofunction as a dealer.
With the above directions the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order asto costs.
28[th] December, 2004
____________________
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
B/o
Js.
To
1 The Joint Collector, Kurnool District, Kurnool.
2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool, Kurnool District.
3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Dhone, Kurnool District.
4 Two CCs to G.P for Civil Supplies, High Court of A.P. Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT)
5 Two CD Copies