Telangana High Court
WP/41087/2014 of H.R.Ranganath Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, on 31 December 2014
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.41087 of 2014 Date:31.12.2014 Between: H.R.Ranganath, S/o Hanumanthappa ..... Petitioner And: The State of Telangana., reptd by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Hyderabad and three others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri
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.
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDYWRIT PETITION No.41087 of 2014Date:31.12.2014
Between:
H.R.Ranganath,S/o Hanumanthappa
..... Petitioner
And:
The State of Telangana., reptd by its PrincipalSecretary, Civil Supplies Department,Hyderabad and three others.
.....Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri P.Narahari Babu Counsel for the Respondents: GP for Civil Supplies (TS)
The Court made the following:ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to setaside proceedings in Rc.No.B/368/2014, dated08.09.2014, of respondent No.4, whereby he hassuspended the petitioner’s fair price shop authorization.
At the hearing, learned Assistant GovernmentPleader for Civil Supplies (Andhra Pradesh) has notdisputed that under the A.P. State Public DistributionSystem (Control) Order, 2008 existing as at present,respondent No.4 has no power or authority to suspend theauthorization of the fair price shop dealer. He has,however, submitted that for the month of January, 2015,release order has already been issued in favour of the in-charge dealer.
In the light of the fact that the impugned order passed by respondent No.4 is without jurisdiction, thesame is set aside as the release order is stated to havebeen issued in favour of in-charge dealer in pursuance ofthe patently illegal order, respondent No.4 is directed toforthwith cancel the release order and issue the releaseorder in favour of the petitioner.
Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition isallowed.
As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition,W.P.M.P.No.51461 of 2014 filed by the petitioner forinterim relief is disposed of as infructuous.
___________________________
JUSTICE
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
31[st] December 2014DR