Telangana High Court
WP/40354/2012 of Kattamuri Ramanamma Vs The District Collector, on 31 December 2012
SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.40354 of 2012 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. Petitioner was appointed as a fair price shop dealer in respect of shop No.46 situated at
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDYWRIT PETITION No.40354of2012
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 learned counsel for the petitioner and learnedAssistant Government Pleader for Civil Suppliesappearing for the respondents.
Petitioner was appointed as a fair price shop dealerin respect of shop No.46 situated at Rajupalem Village,Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, for distributionof essential commodities, which is governed by theprovisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Public DistributionSystem (Control) Order, 2008. By order, dated17.11.2012, the second respondent – Revenue DivisionalO f f i c e r , Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District,suspended the fair price shop authorization of thepetitioner only on the ground that aforesaid fair price shopis being run by a proxy dealer, by name,D.Lakshmanarao, instead of original fair price shopdealer.
In this writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner thatas she is a lady member, she was taking assistance fromher close relative, by name, D.Lakshmanarao, as such, he cannot be termed as a proxy dealer.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties andperused a copy of the impugned order.
It is true that under the provisions of the AndhraPradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order,2008, there is a power conferred on the appointingauthority to suspend the fair price shop authorization.Having regard to the nature of allegations, the matter canbe enquired into without passing any final order and thecompetent authority can pass orders as an interimmeasure, suspending the fair price shop authorization of adealer if such authority feels that allowing such dealer torun the fair price shop pending enquiry will have effect onthe public interest.
It is to be noticed that except the allegation that thefair price shop in question is being run by a proxy dealer,there is no other allegation levelled against the petitioner.Having regard to the nature of such allegation, this Courtis of the view that the second respondent could not havepassed the impugned order suspending the fair priceshop authorization of the petitioner pending enquiry.
For the aforesaid reasons, order, dated 17.11.2012
passed by the second respondent in Rc.No.4366/2012-10/C is hereby quashed and the Writ Petition is allowedwith the direction to the respondents to restore thesupplies to the petitioner in respect of fair price shopNo.46 situated at Rajupalem Village, Anakapalli Mandal,Visakhapatnam District. It is made clear that this order willnot preclude the respondents from conducting enquirywith regard to the allegation levelled against the petitionerand giving her notice and opportunity of hearing. No orderas to costs.
In view of disposal of the Writ Petition,WPMP.No.51201 of 2012 also stands disposed of.
______________________
R.SUBHASH REDDY, J
31[st] DECEMBER, 2012.
kvni