Telangana High Court

WP/28067/2005 of Smt.Rayapudi Pushpavalli Vs The Joint Collector, Khammam, on 30 December 2005

COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No. 28067 of 2005 Between: Smt.Rayapudi Pushpavalli ..... PETITIONER AND The Joint Collector,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FIVE

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAHWRIT PETITION No. 28067 of 2005

Between:

Smt.Rayapudi Pushpavalli

AND

The Joint Collector, Khammam,Khammam District and 2 others

.....RESPONDENTS

..... PETITIONER

ORDER:

Seeking a Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not allotting thestocks and not permitting the petitioner to supply the stocks to the cardholders, asillegal and arbitrary, the present writ petition is filed.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader forCivil Supplies.

Page 1 of 2

It is stated that the petitioner is a fair price shop dealer of Shop No.11 of Zahirpura,Khammam town. While so, the shop of the petitioner was inspected and the stock ofcertain essential commodities have been seized on the ground that the petitionerhas committed certain irregularities and on the report filed by the Deputy Tahsildar(Civil Supplies), Khammam, 6-A proceedings have been initiated by the 1[st] respondent. It is stated that pursuant to the report of the Deputy Tahsildar (CivilSupplies), Khammam, dated 28.10.2005, 6-A proceedings have been taken on fileand the seized stocks were allotted to the neighbouring fair price shop fordistribution to the cardholders, vide proceedings of the 3[rd] respondent dated15.11.2005. It is further stated that the fair price shop dealership of the petitioner hasnot been cancelled or suspended. If that be so, the petitioner cannot be prevented todistribute essential commodities to the cardholders. No doubt pendency of 6-Aproceedings is one of the grounds to initiate action either to cancel or suspend thelicense, but as long as the authorization of the petitioner is not suspended orcancelled, the respondents cannot prevent the petitioner to lift the essentialcommodities and supply the same to the cardholders.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents aredirected to allot stocks to the petitioner and permit her to supply the same to thecardholders as long as her authorization has not been cancelled or suspended.

With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

________________

Dated: 30.12.2005

Dsr

Note:

Issue CC in two days

B/o

Dsr

V.ESWARAIAH,J

Page 2 of 2

Loading citations and judicial treatment…

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead