Telangana High Court

WP/24990/2004 of T. Bhaskar, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool. on 31 December 2004

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 24990 of 2004 Between: T. Bhaskar, S/o Chinna Subbarayudu, Vempenta Village,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

WRIT PETITION NO : 24990 of 2004

Between:

T. Bhaskar, S/o Chinna Subbarayudu, Vempenta Village, Pamulalpadu Mandal, Kurnool District.

AND

..... PETITIONER

1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool.

2 The Joint Collector, Kurnool. 3 Mr. Madhu. S/o Ramakrishna, Vempenta Village, Pamulapadu Mandal, Kurnool District.

.....RESPONDENTS

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 of Mandamusdeclaring the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool in Rc.No.B.492/2004 dt. 18-10-2004 as illegal, unjust, arbitrary and unconstitutional withoutproper consideration and consequently direct the Respondents No.2 to consider theappeal in Rc.Cs.3A PP 433/04.

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.NAGESWARA REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 and 2: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

The Court at the admission stage made the following :

ORDER:

Page 1 of 2

The petitioner, the 3[rd] respondent and seven others applied in response to anotification, dated 31.06.2004 issued by the 1[st] respondent, for the purpose ofappointment of Fair Price Shop Dealer, in respect of Venmpenta Village of KurnoolDistrict. Through order, dated 18.10.2004, the 1[st] respondent selected the 3[rd]respondent. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2[nd] respondent againstthe order of appointment. He also filed an application for stay. His grievance is thatthe 2[nd] respondent did not stay the operation of the order of appointment.

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

The petitioner availed the remedy of appeal against the order of appointment,whereunder the 3[rd] respondent was selected and appointed as Dealer. The groundalleged by the petitioner is that he holds superior qualifications to that of the 3[rd]respondent. It is for the appellate authority to call for the record and examine thecontentions of the petitioner. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the order ofappointment at this stage.

Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that the 2[nd] respondent shall passappropriate orders in the appeal preferred by the petitioner, within eight weeks fromtoday after examining the record and giving an opportunity to the 3[rd] respondent.

__________

31.12.2004

Jsu

1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool.

2 The Joint Collector, Kurnool.

3 2CCs to the G.P for Civil Supplies, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad(0.U.T)

4 2CD copies

Page 2 of 2

Loading citations and judicial treatment…