Telangana High Court
WP/24686/2004 of Gorige Mala Kondaiah, Vs Joint Collector, Prakasham District (Civil Supplies),. on 29 December 2004
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24686 of 2004 Between: Gorige Mala Kondaiah, S/o. Musalaiah, Palluruvari Pally
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.24686 of 2004
Between:
Gorige Mala Kondaiah, S/o. Musalaiah, Palluruvari Pally Village, H/o. Thalluru Kanigiri Mandal, Prakasham District.
..... PETITIONER
AND
1 Joint Collector, Prakasham District (Civil Supplies),. Ongole.
2 Revenue Divisional Officer, kandukur, Prakasam District.
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased toissue a writ or order more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or anappropriate writ or order declaring the action of the respondent No.1 in dismissingthe stay petition vide proceeding Rc.CS2/5035/2004, dt. 05.12.2004 filed against theproceedings RCF No.1972/2004, dt. 07.10.2004 passed by the 2nd respondent asillegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.I.KOTI REDDY
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES
The Court at the admission stage 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.
ORDER:
The petitioner is a Fair Price Shop Dealer. His authorization was suspended by the2[nd] respondent through order, dated 07.10.2004, on certain allegations. He preferredan appeal before the 1[st] respondent together with an application for stay. The 1[st]respondent dismissed the stay application through order, dated 05.12.2004. Hence,this writ petition.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for CivilSupplies.
The 2[nd] respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 19.08.2004,directing him to explain as to why his authorization shall not be cancelled, on theground that he is not residing in Pallurivari Palli Village and that he had violated theconditions of authorization, in the matter of distribution of essential commodities. Thepetitioner submitted his explanation on 07.09.2004. On a consideration of the same,the 2[nd] respondent suspended the authorization of the petitioner through order,dated 07.10.2004. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal as well as anapplication for stay before the 1[st] respondent. The application for stay wasdismissed without stating any reasons. A perusal of the order, dated 07.10.2004,discloses that the petitioner is not accused of misrepresenting any facts at the time ofhis appointment. It is not alleged that on account of his being native of anothervillage, the Fair Price Shop is not being run properly. The petitioner categoricallystated that he is residing in Pullurivari Palli Village. Except making a generalallegation, no specific instance was pointed out as to violation of any conditions. Onthese two charges, the conclusions arrived at by the 2[nd] respondent read as under:
“i) The allegation was proved since the dealer was admitted that hewas the native of the Thalluru Village.
ii) The explanation was not believable.”
A reading of the same discloses that the entire process of issuance of show causenotice and submission of explanation was reduced to an empty formality. There areno allegations against the petitioner that he has diverted the essential commoditiesto black-market or indulged in any unlawful activities.
For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that the order,dated 07.10.2004, passed by the 2[nd] respondent shall remain stayed, till thedisposal of the appeal by the 1[st] respondent. There shall be no order as to costs.
Jsu
____________
29.12.2004
To
1 The Joint Collector, Prakasam District (Civil Supplies), Ongole.
2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, kandukur, Prakasam District.
3 2 CCs to the G.P. for Civil Supplies, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT).
4. 2 CD copies