WP/24874/2004 of Pidathala Musalaiah, Vs The Joint Collector, on 30 December 2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDYWRIT PETITION NO : 24874 of 2004

Between:

Pidathala Musalaiah, S/o China Galaiah, Ramanareddypalem (V), Mundlamur Mandal, Prakasam District.

..... PETITIONER

AND

1 The Joint Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole.

2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur, Prakasam District 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Mundlamur, Mundlamur Mandal, Prakasam District. Prakasam District.

4 Rayapudi Pitchaiah, S/o Dass,

R/o Tallur Village and Mandal, Prakasam 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 pleasedto issue a Writ, order or direction, in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaringthe inaction of the Joint Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole in failing to passorders staying the operation of the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer,Kandukur, dated 11-12-2004 in D.Dis/2438/2004 in the appeal filed on 20-12-2004 by the petitioner herein as illegal and unjust.

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.I.GOPAL REDDY

Counsel for Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

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

The petitioner, the fourth respondent and five others applied in response to thenotification issued by the second respondent for appointment of a fair priceshop dealer for Ramanareddypalem village of Mundlamur mandal, Prakasamdistrict. Through proceedings dated 11.12.2004, the second respondentselected the fourth respondent. The petitioner preferred an appeal before thefirst respondent, against the same. He also filed an application for grant of stay.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the fourth respondent is not aresident of Ramanareddypalem village, as is evident from the Voters’ list forthe village of Tallur, and, in fact, the wife of the fourth respondent, by name,Suvartha was disqualified on the ground that she is a resident of Tallur. Hecontends that this ground was sufficient for the first respondent to have stayedthe operation of the impugned order.

Learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, on the other hand, submits thatit is only after the appellate authority calls for the record that an appropriateorder can be passed and not as an interim measure.

If the point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is true, it certainlygoes to the root of the matter. From a reading of the impugned order itself, it isevident that the fourth respondent was treated as a resident ofRamanareddypalem village, whereas his wife was treated as a resident ofTallur village. This discrepancy needs to be examined, after verifying therecords and giving an opportunity to the fourth respondent. This Court is notinclined to stay the operation of the order of appointment, at this stage.

Hence, this writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to passappropriate orders in the appeal itself within six weeks from the date of receiptof a copy of this order, duly issuing notice to the fourth respondent and afterverifying the record. There shall be no order as to costs.

---------------------

30.12.2004

Note:

Issue CC in two days.

(BO)

ksld

To

1 The Joint Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole.

2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur, Prakasam District 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Mundlamur, Mundlamur Mandal, Prakasam District. Prakasam District.

4 Two C.Cs. to the Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, High CourtBuildings, A.P., Hyderabad, (OUT).Buildings, A.P., Hyderabad, (OUT).

5 Two C.D. Copies.