IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.25722 of 2014 BETWEEN G. Mllikarjuna.
AND ... PETITIONER The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. K. NARSI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. Petitioner is a temporary dealer appointed in the place of one K.P. Rasool, whose permanent dealership was suspended pending enquiry. It appears that the proceedings against the said permanent dealer was revoked by the Revenue Divisional Officer under proceedings Rc.No.1309/2012/F dated 10.07.2012.
However, that order was questioned by the petitioner in WP.No.21598 of 2012 before this Court and by order dated 01.10.2012, this Court allowed the said writ petition with a direction, as follows:
“In this view of the matter, the impugned proceedings, by which respondent No.1 has resorted the authorization of respondent No.3, cannot be sustained in law and the same is, accordingly, set aside. Respondent No.1 is directed to resume the proceedings, complete the enquiry after giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and pass a final order, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till completion of this exercise, the petitioner shall be continued as temporary fair-price-shop dealer.”
In view of the specific direction in the aforesaid order, till completion of the exercise, as directed against the said permanent dealer, the petitioner’s temporary dealership is required to be continued
3. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner alleging that in spite of the aforesaid direction, the respondent authorities are not accepting the demand draft tendered by the petitioner towards supply of commodities for the month of August 2014. It is stated by the petitioner that under the guise of proceedings against the permanent dealer, the petitioner is also being deprived of supply of stocks in spite of payment of amount by way of demand draft.
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, who has taken instructions, submits that so far as continuation of petitioner as fair price shop dealer is concerned, he is already governed by the earlier order of this Court and the allegation of the petitioner that there is an attempt of respondents to terminate the petitioner, as prayed for the in the relief in the writ petition, is wholly without any basis.
5. Since the controversy in the writ petition is only to the extent of continuation of the petitioner as temporary fair price shop dealer, in terms of the order in the writ petition, referred to above, in my view, the issue is already settled by the aforesaid order and till the authorities pass appropriate final order with respect to the permanent fair price shop dealer, as directed under the aforesaid order, the petitioner’s continuation as temporary fair price shop dealer is essential.
Hence, respondents 4 and 5 are directed to ensure compliance of the earlier order, as extracted above and continue the petitioner as temporary fair price shop dealer.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J September 15, 2014
Note: Furnish C.C. of the order by 17.09.2014.
(B/o) DSK