Telangana High Court
WP/26646/2005 of B. Basappa Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer, on 26 December 2005
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No. 26646 of 2005 Between: B. Basappa ..... PETITIONER AND The Revenue Divisional Officer,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FIVE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAHWRIT PETITION No. 26646 of 2005
Between:
B. Basappa
AND
The Revenue Divisional Officer,Kurnool, Kurnool District
..... PETITIONER
.....RESPONDENTS
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:
Seeking a Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not permitting thepetitioner to lift the commodities without issuing any show cause notice and withoutthere being any proceedings, as illegal and arbitrary, the present writ petition is filed.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader forCivil Supplies.
It is stated that the petitioner was appointed as a fair price shop dealer ofJampapuram-II, Kosigi Mandal of Kurnool District, pursuant to the proceedings of the1[st] respondent in Rc.M.1513/90, dated 21.02.1991, and since then the petitioner hasbeen distributing the essential commodities to the cardholders of his fair price shop.While so, the petitioner fell sick on 01.07.2004 and on Doctor’s advice, he appliedmedical leave for a period of one year and during the said period, the said fair priceshop was attached to the adjacent dealer for distribution of essential commodities tothe cardholders. It is stated that after recovery of his health, the petitioner made arepresentation to the 2[nd] respondent on 20.07.2005 for restoration of his dealership, permitting him to liftthe essential commodities, but so far, no orders have been passed on hisrepresentation.
I am not inclined to express any opinion as to whether the leave was granted to thepetitioner, and if the leave was not granted, what are the consequential affects forcontinuation of his dealership. But, however, as the representation of the petitioner ispending before the 2[nd] respondent, it is just and proper to consider and dispose ofthe same, in accordance with law.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the 2[nd] respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the representation of thepetitioner dated 20.07.2005, in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks,from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
________________
V.ESWARAIAH,J