Telangana High Court
WP/41180/2014 of Smt. KRISHNAVENAMMA Vs THE STATE OF TELANGANA on 31 December 2014
SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.41180 of 2014 Dated: 31.12.2014 Between: Smt. Krishnavenamma .. Petitioner and The State of Telangana, The Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar, and others. .. Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. G.Rajeswar Rao. Counsel for the
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.41180 of 2014
Dated: 31.12.2014
Between:Smt. Krishnavenamma .. Petitioner andThe State of Telangana,The Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar,and others. .. Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. G.Rajeswar Rao.
Counsel for the respondents : GP for Civil Supplies (TS)
The court 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:
This writ petition is filed with the grievance that though thepetitioner’s authorisation is valid till 31.03.2015, the respondents havestopped allotment of essential commodities on the ground thatrespondent No.1 has passed an order under Section 6-A of theEssential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) confiscating 75%of the value of the seized stock.
In my opinion, the scope of the proceedings under Section 6-Aof the Act being different and distinct from that of the disciplinaryproceedings, mere initiation of or mere conclusion of proceedingsunder Section 6-A of the Act would not automatically lead todiscontinuance of the petitioner as fair price shop dealer. It isincumbent upon the appointing authority to examine whether thenature of the allegations on which the proceedings under Section 6-Aof the Act have been initiated warrants initiation of any disciplinaryaction. Unless such disciplinary action is initiated and theauthorisation of the fair price shop dealer is suspended or cancelled,he/she shall be allowed to continue as the dealer so long as his/herauthorisation continues to subsist. As the petitioner pleaded that herauthorisation is valid till 31.03.2015, respondent No.3 shall resume theallotment of essential commodities to the petitioner, on being satisfiedthat the authorisation is valid till 31.03.2015. The petitioner shall becontinued as fair price shop dealer so long as her authorisationsubsists.
Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of.As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.51559of 2014, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, shall stand disposed ofas infructuous.
_____________________
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
31.12.2014v v