HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.22693 of 2009 DATED: 23 .01.2014 Between:
D.Srinivasulu ... Petitioner And The Revenue Divisional Officer Adoni, Kurnool district & another … Respondents The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.22693 of 2009 ORDER:
The petitioner was appointed as permanent fair price shop dealer of Nagarur vllage, Aspari Mandal, Kurnool district, by the first respondent. As he was suffering from ill-health and was advised by the doctor to take complete bed rest, he submitted a representation to the 2nd respondent on 17.02.2009 applying for leave for a period of four months and the same was sanctioned by the 2nd respondent and alternate arrangement was made on 21.02.2009 by proceedings in RC.B.46/08, appointing Smt. C.Urkundamma, fair price shop dealer, for a period of four months from 17.02.2009 to 16.06.2009 or till regular dealer is reinstated, whichever is earlier. The authorisation of the petitioner was valid up to 31.03.2009. He paid an amount of Rs.250/- towards fee for renewal on 28.03.2009. On 16.06.2009 he approached the 2nd respondent seeking orders of reinstatement and for supply of commodities to his fair price shop. When no orders are passed, the petitioner filed WP No.17873 of 2009 and this Court disposed of the writ petition on 26.08.2009 directing the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 16.06.2009 and 06.07.2009 and pass necessary orders within a period of four weeks. On receipt of the said order, the first respondent passed impugned orders in Rc.M.821/09 dated 25.09.2009 cancelling the dealership of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has not applied for renewal of authorisation, though his authorisation expired on 31.03.2009. Another ground on which the dealership was cancelled was that the leave applied by the dealer was not granted by any competent authority.
2. So far as the first ground is concerned, the record clearly shows that the petitioner applied for renewal on 28.03.2009 and so far as the 2nd ground is concerned, the 2nd respondent passed orders of making temporary arrangements on 21.02.2009 pursuant to the application of the petitioner dated 17.02.2009. Thus the order of the first respondent suffers from error apparent on the face of the record.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 25.09.2009 is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. Pending miscellaneous petitions in this writ petition, if any, shall stand dismissed in consequence. No costs.
A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J
Date: 23.01.2014 BSS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO 6 WRIT PETITION No.22693 of 2009 Date: 23.01.2014 BSS