Telangana High Court
WP/23056/2004 of P. Lakshminarayana Reddy S/o P. Tummala Reddy Vs The District Collector, Ananthapur, on 27 December 2004
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 23056 of 2004 Between: P. Lakshminarayana Reddy S/o P. Tummala Reddy, Fair
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDYWRIT PETITION NO : 23056 of 2004
Between:
P. Lakshminarayana Reddy S/o P. Tummala Reddy, Fair Price ShopDeaper, Morasalepalli village , Chilamattur Mandal, Ananthapur District
..... PETITIONER
AND
1 The District Collector, Ananthapur, Ananthapur District 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Penukonda, Anantapur District 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Chilamattur, Ananthapur District
.....RESPONDENT(S)
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 Mandamusdeclaring the action of the respondents in not restoring the Fair Price Shop of thepetitioner and action of the 3rd respondent in not supplying the essentialcommodities to the petitioner's fair price shop Morasalepalli Village, ChilamatturMandal Ananthapur District is illegal, improper and against the principles of naturaljustice and in violation of the provisions of A.P. Public Distribution system (Control)order 2001.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.SRINIVAS
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES
The Court at the stage of admission made the following ORDER:
The petitioner was appointed as a fair price shop dealer. He was issued a showcause notice-cum-suspension order dated 18-10-1995, whereunder, certain chargeswere framed against him. The petitioner submitted his explanation. An order is saidto have been passed in September 1996, dropping further action against thepetitioner by imposing fine of Rs.1000/-. The petitioner states that the order has notbeen implemented so far.
Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for CivilSupplies.
On the face of it, the petitioner is guilty of latches. If an order was passed way backin the year 1996 dropping the charges against him, he ought to have takenimmediate steps to get it enforced. The reasons for such an enormous delay are notexplained.
Be that as it may, if the proceedings against the petitioner were dropped by imposinga penalty of Rs.1000/- and if the petitioner complied with the same, there is noreason why the benefit of the same cannot be extended to the petitioner. As of now,it is not known as to whether any subsequent proceedings were initiated against the petitioner.
For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is disposed of directing the secondrespondent to verify the matter and give effect to his own orders passed in the year1996, if no other proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner thereafter.No order as to costs.
_______________
27-12-2004
Note:Issue C.C. by two days
(B/o)
kdl
To
1 The District Collector, Ananthapur, Ananthapur District 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Penukonda, Anantapur District 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Chilamattur, Ananthapur District 4 Two C.Cs. to the Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, High Court Buildings,A.P., Hyderabad, (OUT).A.P., Hyderabad, (OUT).
5 Two C.D. Copies.