Telangana High Court

WP/24955/2004 of Smt. B. Lakshmi Devi, Vs The Joint Collector, on 31 December 2004

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 24955 of 2004 Between: Smt.B.Lakshmi Devi, W/o.Sudhakar, Aged about 34 years,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDYWRIT PETITION NO : 24955 of 2004

Between:

Smt.B.Lakshmi Devi, W/o.Sudhakar,Aged about 34 years, Occ: F.P.shop dealer,R/o. Gondiparla Village, Kurnool Mandal & District.

AND1. The Joint Collector,Kurnool District.2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,Kurnool District.3. The Mandal Revenue Officer,Kurnool Mandal, Kurnool District.

..... PETITIONER

.....RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased toissue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2[nd] respondent in proceedings Rc.B.1553 of2004 dt.7.12.2004 as illegal, arbitrary, malafide against the provisions of ControlOrder 2001 and consequently direct the respondents to restore the authorization ofthe petitioner by suspending impugned proceedings pending the appeal before the1[st] Respondent.

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.V.CHALAPATHI RAOCounsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

The Court at the admission stage made the following :

ORDER:

Page 1 of 2

The authorization of the petitioner was cancelled by the 2[nd] respondent throughorder, dated 07.12.2004, on the ground that she is working as Anganwadi Teacher.She preferred an appeal before the 1[st] respondent. She also filed an application forstay. It is represented that the 1[st] respondent rejected the application for stay.Hence, this writ petition.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for CivilSupplies.

Though learned counsel for the petitioner had urged several grounds touching onthe merits of the matter, this Court is not inclined to deal with the same at this stage.The question, as to whether the order of cancellation suffers from any illegality orinfirmity, needs to be examined by the appellate authority after calling for the record.Except where the order is passed by an authority not vested with the jurisdiction andwhere an order is passed without issuing any notice to the dealer, this Court doesnot interfere with the order of cancellation, unless the remedy of appeal isexhausted.

Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the 1[st] respondent shall dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner, within a period of six weeks from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this order and the 2[nd] respondent shall not make any regular appointment in the place of the petitioner, till the disposal of the appealby the 1[st] respondent. There shall be no order as to costs.

Jsu

___________

31.12.2004

1. The Joint Collector,

Kurnool District.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,

Kurnool District.

3. The Mandal Revenue Officer,

Kurnool Mandal, Kurnool District.

4 2CCs to the G.P for Revenue, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad(O.U.T).

5 2CD copies

Page 2 of 2

Loading citations and judicial treatment…