THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22761 of 2014 Dated: 09.10.2014 Between:
Smt. G. Sudha Rani .. Petitioner and The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and others. .. Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. A. Chandraiah Naidu Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies (A.P.) This Court made the following:
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed with the grievance that the respondents are seeking to proceed with the decision of respondent No.3, taken vide D.Dis/C1/947/09 dated 19.11.2009 bifurcating the petitioner’s fair price shop.
The petitioner has earlier questioned the above-mentioned order of respondent No.3 in W.P.No.26282 of 2009. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 22.04.2010, whereby the petitioner was permitted to file an appeal against the said order of bifurcation. The petitioner pleaded that she has accordingly filed an appeal before respondent No.2 in September 2010, that the said appeal was returned as the same was not filed within the period of limitation and that respondent No.2 had no power to condone the delay. The petitioner further pleaded that as respondents 3 to 5 have not proceeded further with the implementation of the bifurcation order, she has not re-presented the appeal and pursued the same. She has further pleaded that recently respondents 3 to 5 resumed the process of implementation of bifurcation order passed by respondent No.3. She has, therefore, filed the present writ petition.
In my opinion, having suffered an order earlier by this Court in W.P.No.26282 of 2009, the petitioner cannot maintain the present writ petition for questioning the bifurcation order passed by respondent No.3. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that any order in writing was passed by respondent No.3 withdrawing his earlier order. Therefore, the cause for the petitioner did not abate. If respondent No.2 has not entertained the appeal on the ground of delay, the petitioner ought to have availed appropriate remedy against the said respondent. Instead of availing such remedy, the petitioner has filed this writ petition questioning the bifurcation order on its merits. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this writ petition.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, however, with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal, if she still feels aggrieved by the bifurcation order passed by respondent No.3.
As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.Nos.28538 and 31674 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 9th October, 2014 IBL