Telangana High Court

WP/24512/2004 of Kurapati Pardhasaradhi, Vs The Joint Collector, on 29 December 2004

Cites 0, Cited by 0

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 24512 of 2004 Between: Kurapati Pardhasaradhi, S/o. Venkateswarlu, Shop No.17,

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

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…

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

WRIT PETITION NO : 24512 of 2004

Between:

Kurapati Pardhasaradhi, S/o. Venkateswarlu, Shop No.17, Dhara Varithota, Ongole Town, Ongole, Prakasam District.

AND

..... PETITIONER

1 The Joint Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole.

2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, Prakasam District, Ongole.

3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Ongole, Prakasam District, Ongole.

.....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 Writ ofMandamus declaring the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole inRCC/1821/2004 dated 11-12-2004 as illegal, arbitrary, void and opposed to theprinciples of natural justice and also the provisions of A.P. State Public DistributionSystem Control Order, 2001 and further orders that the petitioner be entitled tofunction as the Fair Price Shop Dealer of Shop No.17, of Ongole Town, OngolePrakasam District pending the disposal of the appeal filed by the petitioner on 16-12-2004 before the 1[st] respondent herein.

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.I.GOPAL REDDY

The Court at the stage of admission made the following ORDER:

The petitioner is appointed as a fair price shop dealer. An inspection was conductedon 30-11-2004 by the Mandal Revenue Officer, the third respondent herein. Onnoticing certain irregularities, he initiated the proceedings under Section 6-A of theEssential Commodities Act (for short ‘the Act’) before the first respondent. He, inturn, took the proceedings on file and addressed a letter dated 07-12-2004 to thesecond respondent to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner.Consequently, the second respondent passed an order dated 11-12-2004suspending the authorisation of the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner preferredan appeal before the first respondent against the order dated 11-12-2004, togetherwith an application for stay. His grievance is that no orders have been passed by thefirst respondent so far.

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

The basis for suspension of the authorisation of the petitioner is the initiation of theproceedings against him under Section 6-A of the Act. The truth or otherwise of theallegations against the petitioner for instituting proceedings under Section 6-A of theAct, needs to be considered by the first respondent after examining the record andconsidering the explanation offered by the petitioner. It may not be advisable orfeasible to permit the petitioner to function as fair price shop dealer till the disposal ofthe proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act. Since the first respondent is theappellate authority against the order of suspension and original authority in respectof proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act, he has to deal with the same together.

Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to passappropriate orders in the proceedings initiated under Section 6-A of the Act againstthe petitioner as well as the appeal preferred by him, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The second respondent shall notappoint any dealer on permanent basis, in place of the petitioner till the disposal ofthe appeal by the first respondent. No order as to costs.

________________

29-12-2004

Note: Issue C.C. by three days

(B/o)

kdl

To

1 The Joint Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole.

2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, Prakasam District, Ongole.

3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Ongole, Prakasam District, Ongole.

4 Two CCs to the Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, A.P.High Court Buildings,Hyderabad (OUT).Hyderabad (OUT).

5 Two CD copies.

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.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

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