Telangana High Court
WP/41178/2014 of J.Sunitha Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 31 December 2014
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.41178 of 2014 Date:31.12.2014 Between: J.Sunitha, W/o K.C.Jayarama Reddy ..... Petitioner And: The State of A.P., reptd by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Hyderabad and three others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri
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.
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDYWRIT PETITION No.41178 of 2014Date:31.12.2014
Between:
J.Sunitha,
W/o K.C.Jayarama Reddy
..... Petitioner
And:
The State of A.P., reptd by its PrincipalSecretary, Civil Supplies Department,Hyderabad and three others.
.....Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri P.Narahari Babu Counsel for the Respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies (AP)
The Court made the following:ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declarethe action of respondent No.4, in not allotting the essentialcommodities to the petitioner for distribution, as illegal andarbitrary.
It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that she hasbeen working as the permanent fair price shop dealer fromthe year 2011 without any blemish and that under the localpolitical influence, respondent No.4 has suddenly stoppedallotment of essential commodities to the petitioner andhas allowed third parties to distribute the essentialcommodities in the name of the petitioner’s fair price shop.
In my opinion, so long as the petitioner’s fair priceshop authorization remains in force, respondent No.4 hasno authority to deprive the petitioner of her right todistribute the essential commodities to the card holders.While cautioning respondent No.4 not to resort to such acts in future, respondent Nos.3 and 4 are directed toforthwith allow the petitioner to distribute the essentialcommodities from the month of January 2015.Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are cautioned that violation ofthis order will be viewed seriously.
Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition isallowed.
As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition,W.P.M.P.No.51557 of 2014 filed by the petitioner forinterim relief is disposed of as infructuous.
___________________________
JUSTICE
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
31[st] December 2014DR