Telangana High Court
WP/23182/2006 of P. GovinduS/o. P. Ramanna Vs The Revenue Devisional Officer, Anantapur on 28 December 2006
SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.23182 of 2006 Dated:28.12.2006 Between P.Govindu …..Petitioner and The Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur Revenue Division, Anantapur …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.23182 of 2006 ORDER: This writ petition is
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.
Conclusion
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU
W.P.No.23182 of 2006
Dated:28.12.2006
BetweenP.Govindu
and
…..Petitioner
The Revenue Divisional Officer,Anantapur Revenue Division,Anantapur …Respondent
ORDER:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULUW.P.No.23182 of 2006
This writ petition is filed seeking a Certiorarito call for the records relating to the order of ther e s p o n d e n t videproceedings inRc.No.D1/CS/1489/2006, dated 17.10.2006 andquash the same as arbitrary and illegal.
Under the impugned proceedings, the
authorization held by the petitioner against the fairprice shop of Dharmapuram Village, Gooty Mandal,Anantapur District was suspended pending enquiryinto certain allegations against him. Aggrieved bythe same, the present writ petition is filed.
While admitting the writ petition on 8.11.2006,interim suspension of the impugned order wasgranted.
Now, a counter and vacate stay petition are filed by the respondents.
The suspension order dated 17.10.2006issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer does notindicate any serious allegations being allegedagainst the petitioner. The allegations are vagueapart from being general in nature. There is nospecific allegation against the petitioner, whereas inthe counter filed by the respondent it is assertedthat the fair price shop dealer cannot utilize theauthority of dealership for other purposes, he isthreatening SC, ST card holders which amounts tocommitting atrocities on SCs & STs and will causehindrance to the common card holders. Further, healso indulged in village politics and not distributingthe essential commodities properly.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, Iam of the opinion that the impugned order passedby the Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur dated17.10.2006 is not in public interest, and the samewas in view of the general allegations made againstthe petitioner. Such allegations can be enquired intoby the authorities concerned, without suspending the authorization of the petitioner. Therefore, I deemit appropriate to set aside the impugned suspensionorder passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer,dated 17-10-2006.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed andthe impugned order is set aside. However, thisorder will not preclude the authorities fromconducting a detailed enquiry into the allegationsmade against the petitioner and taking appropriateaction as per law.
rkk
__________
28-12-2006