Telangana High Court
WP/24649/2004 of Smt. D. Rajamma, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer, on 31 December 2004
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 24649 of 2004 Between: Smt. D. Rajamma, W/o. Manjunath, Korthikota, Tanakallu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO : 24649 of 2004
Between:
Smt. D. Rajamma, W/o. Manjunath,
Korthikota, Tanakallu Mandal, Anantapur District.
AND
..... PETITIONER
1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Penukonda Division, Penukonda, Anantapur District.
2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Tanakallu Mandal, Tanakallu, Anantapur 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 an appropriate Writ, Order or direction, preferably one in the nature of Writ ofMandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not supplying the essentialcommodities to the petitioner in respect of F.P.Shop of Korthikota Village, TanakalluMandal, Anantapur District, for the months of December, 2004, in spite of applicationfor renewal of Authorisation/License is pending consideration before the 1strespondent as arbitrary, illegal, violative of A.P. State Public Distribution SystemControl Order, 2001 as well as violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitutionand consequently direct the respondents herein to supply the essential commoditiesto the petitioner in respect of Fair Price Shop of Korthikota Village, TanakalluMandal, Anantapur District, as usual forthwith.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.PRASADA RAO
Counsel 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 of Korthikota village ofAnanthapur District. The 1[st] respondent issued a show cause noticeon 24.9.2004 directing her to explain as to why her authorization shallnot be cancelled.
The petitioner claims to have submitted an explanation. Even whilethe matter was pending, the respondents stopped supplies to her.Hence, she filed W.P.No.18856 of 2004. This Court disposed of thewrit petition through an order dated 10.11.2004 directing that as longas the authorization of the petitioner is in force she shall be suppliedwith the essential commodities. The petitioner states that pursuant tothe order, the commodities were supplied till November, 2004. Shealleges that the respondents stopped supplying all the essentialcommodities on the ground that the authorization is not yet renewed.It is her case that she paid the challan and made an application forrenewal of authorization on 26.7.2003, but the 1st respondent hasnot passed any orders so far renewing the authorization and sheseeks the said directions to the respondents in this regard.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learnedGovernment Pleader for Civil Supplies.
This Court gains an impression that the respondents are trying tooverreach the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.18856 of 2004or are making efforts to defeat the benefit of the said order to thepetitioner. The petitioner has placed before this Court a copy of thechallan, dated 26.7.2003 whereunder a sum of Rs.500/- was paidtowards fee for renewal of authorization. No orders are said to havebeen passed on it so far. Further, grant or renewal of authorization of a Fair Price Shop dealer is almost a routine. As long as any order ofappointment exists in favour of a dealer, the 1[st] respondent cannottake advantage of his own inaction to penalize the petitioner.
Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the respondentsshall supply essential commodities to the petitioner without insistingon her renewal of authorization. In case the 1[st] respondent finds thatthe petitioner is not entitled to renewal of authorization, he shall beput under obligation to pass a detailed and reasoned order indicatingthe grounds for refusal. There shall be no order as to costs.
_________________________
(L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.)
31[st] December, 2004.
To
1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Penukonda Division, Penukonda, Anantapur District.
2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Tanakallu Mandal, Tanakallu, Anantapur District.
3. Two CCs to G.P. for Civil Supplies, High court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT)Hyderabad (OUT)
4. Two CD copies.
Note: Furnish copy by tomorrow
(b/o)
bcj