Telangana High Court
WP/28913/2009 of D. Seshamma Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 31 December 2009
SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.28913 of 2009 Date:31.12.2009 Between: D. Seshamma. ..... PETITIONER AND The Revenue Divisional Officer and another. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.28913 of 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA
WRIT PETITION No.28913 of 2009
Date:31.12.2009
Between:D. Seshamma.
ANDThe Revenue Divisional Officer and another.
..... PETITIONER
.....RESPONDENTS
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADAWRIT PETITION No.28913 of 2009
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:
This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of thesecond respondent in issuing the proceedings in Rc.C.489/2009 dated10.11.2009 suspending the petitioner’s fair price shop authorization ofH. Kottala Village, Bethamcherla Mandal, Kurnool District.
The petitioner was appointed as the permanent fair price shopdealer of H. Kottala Village by the first respondent on 18.03.2006. Onthe ground that the essential commodities were not shifted to the fairprice shop and the same were stored unauthorisedly in a marble factory,the Village Revenue Officer, after visiting the fair price shop, submitted areport to the second respondent, who, as per the powers conferred onhim in G.O.Ms.No.47 dated 06.10.2007, suspended the authorization ofthe petitioner by the impugned proceedings.
The grievance of the petitioner is that the stocks were loadedoutside the Village by the talari and the lorry driver due to the heavy rainat around 12.00 p.m., however the Village Revenue Officer, with a viewto suspend her (petitioner’s) authorization, submitted report to thesecond respondent stating that the stocks were stored unauthorisedly,based on which the second respondent suspended her authorization.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learnedGovernment Pleader appearing for the respondents.
As of now two months have been elapsed since the authorizationof the petitioner is suspended by the impugned proceedings. Nevertheless, since the matter is pending before the first respondent andsince the truthness or otherwise of the allegation made against thepetitioner has yet to be decided, it would suffice in the interests of justiceif the first respondent is directed to complete the enquiry by restoring theauthorization of the petitioner.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the firstrespondent to complete the enquiry proceedings within a period of eightweeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, duringthe pendency of the enquiry, the petitioner’s authorization shall berestored and she shall be permitted to continue as the dealer of the fairprice shop in question. No costs.
____________________________
(GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J)
31[st ]December, 2009GHN
WRIT PETITION No.28913 of 2009
OPERATIVE PORTION:
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the firstrespondent to complete the enquiry proceedings within a period of eightweeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, duringthe pendency of the enquiry, the petitioner’s authorization shall berestored and she shall be permitted to continue as the dealer of the fairprice shop in question. No costs.
____________________________
(GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J)
31[st ]December, 2009
Note: 1. Issue operative portion at party’s costs. 2. Return the bundle to Court Masters’ Section after dispatch of wire. (B/o) GHN