Telangana High Court
WP/28118/2007 of M/s. P. Satyanarayana Kerosene Wholesale Dealer, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh civil Supplies on 28 December 2007
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTYEIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND SEVEN P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA * * * WRIT PETITION No.28118 of 2007 Between: M/s.P.Satyanarrayana … Petitioner Versus
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TWENTYEIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND SEVEN
P R E S E N TTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA* * *
WRIT PETITION No.28118 of 2007Between:M/s.P.Satyanarrayana … Petitioner Versus Govt.of APCivil Supplies Department,Represented by its Commissioner,Civil Supplies Bhavan, Hyderabad & Anr. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri T P ACHARYA
Counsel for the Respondents: GOVT.PLEADER FOR CIVILSUPPLIES
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA
* * *
WRIT PETITION No.28118 of 2007
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.
O R D E R :
Heard Sri T. P. Acharya, the learned counsel representingthe writ petitioner as well as the learned Govt.Pleader for CivilSupplies.
2. The writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus, declaringthe impugned order dated 26-12-2007 of the first respondentpassed in CCS.Progs.No.E2/8863/2007 as arbitrary, illegal andconsequently to direct the first respondent to call for the entirefile from the second respondent and decide the appeal preferredby the petitioner within a specified time by taking the same on hisfile and to pass such other suitable orders as this Court maydeems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
3. Several facts had been narrated in the affidavit filed insupport of the writ petition. It is stated that an appeal had beenpreferred to the first respondent and the first respondent not onlyrejected the stay application but also disposed of the main appealwithout hearing the matter on merits.
4. As can seen from the impugned order, it is observed as hereunder:
“Prima facie there is a case against theappellant. Therefore, the request of the appellant tostay the operation of order dated 05-12-2008 of theJoint Collector, Ananthapur, is hereby rejected andremitted back the case to the Joint Collector,Ananthapur with a direction to dispose of the casewithin a period of four weeks from the date of receiptof the order, following due procedure laid down underthe AP Petroleum Products (L& RS) Order, 1980 asthe case was already posted by the Jt.Collector,Ananthapur to 28-12-2007”
5. In-as-much-as, the matter is pending before the JointCollector, Ananthapur, Anathapur district. Without expressing anyopinion relating to the other merits and demerits of the matter, letthe Joint Collector, Ananthapur complete the enquiry and passappropriate orders on merits and in accordance within law, withina period of four weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of thisorder and till then the impugned order as well as the suspensionorder are hereby suspended.
6. The writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.No costs.
JUSTICE P . S .NARAYANA .
28/12/2007.
NB:
1) Operative Portion of the Order by wire at party’s costs.
2) Furnish CC of the order tomorrow.
B/o. ISL