Telangana High Court
WP/24683/2004 of Smt. N. Saraswathamma, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer. 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: 24683 of 2004 Between: Smt. N. Saraswathamma, W/o. N. Sarvothamma Reddy,
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: 24683 of 2004
Between:
Smt. N. Saraswathamma, W/o. N. Sarvothamma Reddy, H.Bapuram, H/o. Halaharvi Village, Nandavaram Mandal, Kurnool District.
..... PETITIONER
AND
1 The Revenue Divisional Officer. Kurnool District.
2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Nandavaram, Kurnool 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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ ofMandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not permitting the petitioner tolift the stocks without any valid reasons as illegal, malafide, arbitrary and against theprinciples of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to permit thepetitioner to lift the stocks for their respective F.P. Shops.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.V.CHALAPATHI RAO
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 grievance of the petitioner is that though her authorization is subsisting, therespondents are not supplying essential commodities to her. It is stated that she hasnot been issued any show cause notice nor was served with orders of suspension orcancellation.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for CivilSupplies.
The very purpose of appointing a Fair Price Shop Dealer is to enable such dealer tosupply the essential commodities. As long as an authorization subsists in favour of adealer, is entitled to be supplied the essential commodities.
Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that the respondents shall supplythe essential commodities to the petitioner, as along as the dealership in favour ofher is neither suspended nor cancelled. There shall be no order as to costs.
Note: Issue wire at party’s costs.
(B/o)
Jsu
_________
29.12.2004
To
1 The Revenue Divisional Officer. Kurnool District.
2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Nandavaram, Kurnool District.
3. 2CCs to the G.P. for Civil Supplies, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT).
4. 2CD copies.