Telangana High Court
WP/40005/2014 of P. Nagoor Bee Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 30 December 2014
SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.40005 of 2014 DATE: 30.12.2014 Between: P.Nagoor Bee …Petitioner and The State of Andhra Pradesh and others …Respondents COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER : SRI SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS : AGP FOR CIVIL
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDYWRIT PETITION No.40005of2014
DATE: 30.12.2014
Between:P.Nagoor Bee…Petitioner andThe State of Andhra Pradesh and others…Respondents COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER : SRI SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS : AGP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES (AP)
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.40005of2014
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 for a mandamus to declare the action ofthe respondents in not releasing essential commodities to thepetitioner’s fair price shop No.28 of Damalacheruvu Village, PakalaMandal, Chittoor District, as illegal and arbitrary.
Upon looking into the material filed by the petitioner which prima facie revealed that the action of respondent No.4 in sendingreport under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (forshort ‘the Act’) for the minute variation in respect of the only essentialcommodity, namely, sugar, this Court has issued a notice torespondent No.4 to show cause why disciplinary action shall not bedirected to be initiated against him besides imposing heavy personalcosts for abusing his office. In response to the said notice, respondentNo.4 is personally present and while admitting his mistake in sendingthe report under Section 6-A of the Act, he has undertaken to send afresh report requesting to drop further proceedings as the allegedvariation is well within the permissible limit under Clause 24 of theAndhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order,2008. He has also stated that the petitioner will be allowed to continueas fair price shop dealer ignoring the inspection and the reportsubmitted under Section 6-A of the Act.
The petitioner is accordingly permitted to approach respondentNo.4 for receiving the release order. On the petitioner’s approachingrespondent No.4, he shall issue release order after receiving DemandDraft from the petitioner.
Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.50171 of2014 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of asinfructuous.
30[th] DECEMBER, 2014.
kvni
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J