Telangana High Court
WP/39509/2012 of Peesala Raghunath Vs The Joint Collector, on 28 December 2012
R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.39509 OF 2012 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed questioning the proceedings in Ref.C/2738/2011, dated 13.01.2012, and the consequential notification, dated 29.11.2012, issued in Ref.C.5688/2012. The petitioner is a temporary fair price shop dealer for
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.39509 OF 2012
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 questioning the proceedings inRef.C/2738/2011, dated 13.01.2012, and the consequentialnotification, dated 29.11.2012, issued in Ref.C.5688/2012.
The petitioner is a temporary fair price shop dealer fordistribution of essential commodities for shop No.36 of Ward No.11,Kadapa Town. When the authorisation of the petitioner was cancelled,on certain allegations, he carried the matter by way of an appealbefore respondent No.1 – appellate authority. The appellate authority,without going into the merits, by order, dated 16.07.2012, inRef.No.I(3)/1967/2012, rejected the appeal petition, on the ground thatthe appeal is not filed within time.
When the matter came up on earlier occasion, it was adjournedto enable the learned counsel for the petitioner to produce a copy ofthe affidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition. When thematter is called today, it is eventually submitted by the learned counselfor the petitioner that no affidavit is filed, indicating the reasons fordelay, before the appellate authority. Even in the affidavit filed insupport of the Writ Petition, no reasons were stated for the delay. Thepetitioner has not stated any reason for not filing an affidavit.
If the appeal is not filed within the time prescribed under lawand in the event of delay, unless the petitioner shows sufficient causeto condone the delay, by filing an affidavit, it cannot be condoned justlike that. In that view of the matter, as no affidavit is filed giving reasonsfor delay, I do no find any merit in this Writ Petition to interfere with theorder of the appellate authority refusing to condone the delay.However, it is made clear that, if any reason exists for the delay, thiswill not preclude the petitioner to seek review of the order, dated 16.07.2012, by filing appropriate affidavit before the appellateauthority.
Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposedof. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shallstand closed. No costs.
December 28, 2012MD
________________________
R. SUBHASH REDDY, J
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.39509 OF 2012
MD
December 28, 2012