Telangana High Court
WP/40704/2014 of M. Dali Naidu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 30 December 2014
SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.40704 of 2014 DATE: 30.12.2014 Between: M.Dali Naidu …Petitioner and The State of Andhra Pradesh and others …Respondents COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER : SRI TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS : AGP FOR CIVIL
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDYWRIT PETITION No.40704of2014DATE: 30.12.2014Between:M.Dali Naidu…Petitioner andThe State of Andhra Pradesh and others…RespondentsCOUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER : SRI TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAOCOUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS : AGP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES (AP)
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.40704 of2014
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 set aside letter videRc.No.05/2014/A, dated 13.11.2014 addressed by respondent No.3whereby he has submitted a report to respondent No.5.
Petitioner is the fair price shop dealer of Sancham-I Village,Ranastalam Mandal, Srikakulam District. On 13.11.2014, the officialsof Vigilance and Enforcement Department, Srikakulam along withMandal Revenue Inspector inspected his fair price shop and seizedessential commodities on the ground that they have found certainvariations in the essential commodities such as rice, sugar andkerosene oil. Following the said seizure, respondents 3 and 4appeared to have stopped allotment of essential commodities to thepetitioner.
As regards the impugned letter, I am not inclined to interferewith the initiation of proceedings under Section 6-A of the EssentialCommodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’). However, with regard to thegrievance of the petitioner that respondents 3 and 4 have stoppedallotment of essential commodities, I am of the opinion that mereinitiation of proceedings under Section 6-A of the EssentialCommodities Act, 1955 would not operate as automatic suspension ofthe petitioner’s fair price shop authorization. So long as his fair priceshop authorization remains in force, respondents 3 and 4 cannot stopallotment of essential commodities to the petitioner.
In that view of the matter, respondents 3 and 4 are directed toallot essential commodities to the petitioner so long as his fair priceshop authorization remains in force.
Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.51005 of2014 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.
30[th] DECEMBER, 2014.
kvni
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J