Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Telangana
  4. /
  5. 2014
  6. /
  7. January

B Ammalu vs The State Of A P

High Court Of Telangana|27 December, 2014
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.40025 of 2014 Date:27.12.2014 Between: B.Ammalu, W/o Lakshminarayana . Petitioner And:
The State of A.P., reptd by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Hyderabad and two others.
. Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri A.Ravi Shankar Counsel for the Respondent: AGP for Civil Supplies (AP) The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside proceedings, vide Rekha No.838/2014 CS, dated 25.09.2014, of respondent No.3, whereby he has replaced the petitioner with a dealer of another fair price shop by keeping him in-charge of the petitioner's fair price shop.
A perusal of the impugned proceeding shows that the only ground on which the petitioner has been replaced is the alleged initiation of proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) against him.
At the hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies (Andhra Pradesh) has fairly conceded that respondent No.3 has no jurisdiction to issue the impugned proceeding as, he is not the appointing authority.
In my opinion, respondent No.3 has acted in a highly illegal manner by clutching at the jurisdiction which is not vested in him. Under the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008, it is only respondent No.2, who is the appointing authority and vested with the jurisdiction to suspend, vary or cancel the authorization of a fair price shop dealer. Unless such power is exercised and the authorization of fair price shop dealer is suspended, varied or cancelled, he/she cannot be replaced with another dealer, more so, only for the reason that the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act have been initiated against him/her.
In this view of the matter, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order, dated 25.09.2014, of respondent No.3 is set aside. Respondent No.3 is saddled with costs of Rs.5,000/- payable from his personal money for passing a patently illegal order.
As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.50200 of 2014 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.
27th December 2014 DR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

B Ammalu vs The State Of A P

Court

High Court Of Telangana

JudgmentDate
27 December, 2014
Judges
  • C V Nagarjuna Reddy
Advocates
  • Sri A Ravi Shankar