HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY Writ Petition No.22007 of 2014 Date: 11-08-2014 Between:
D. Nageswara Rao .. Petitioner AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Hyderabad and 3 others .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY Writ Petition No.22007 of 2014 ORDER:
The writ petition is filed for a mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not passing any orders on the delay application filed along with the revision filed on 08-07-2014 against the order passed by the 3rd respondent in ACD Dis.No.10/2012- S7, dated 29-12-2012 as illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to dispose of the delay petition.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a fair price shop dealer of Dodleru village, Krosuru Mandal, Guntur District and has been distributing the essential commodities to the card holders regularly without committing any sort of irregularity. It is stated that on 26-08-2010 the Deputy Tahsildar, Civil Supplies, Tenali visited the shop of the petitioner and seized the stocks available on the allegation that there are variations in stocks and registered a case under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act and submitted a report before the 3rd respondent consequent upon which the 4th respondent initiated disciplinary proceedings and suspended his authorisation pending enquiry and ultimately cancelled his authorisation vide proceedings in Rc.No.2122/2010-B, dated 19-04-2012. Against the said proceedings, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent, who passed orders on 29-12-2012 dismissing the appeal. Challenging the said orders on the appeal, the petitioner filed a revision before the 2nd respondent on 08-07-2014 and since there is a delay in filing the revision, along with the revision the petitioner filed a petition for condoning the delay in filing the revision, but no orders are passed on the said petition. Aggrieved by the said action, the present writ petition is filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.
4. Since it is stated that the petitioner filed a petition for condoning the delay along with the revision petition before the 2nd respondent, it is for the 2nd respondent to consider the said petition and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law.
5. In view of the same, the 2nd respondent is directed to dispose of the petition for condonation of delay as expeditiously as possible.
With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of.
No costs.
A. RAJASHEKER REDDY, J Date: 11-08-2014 Ksn