THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.39345 of 2014 Dated 23.12.2014 Between:
Kolagani Bhagyalaxmi, W/o. Venkateshwarlu, And State of Telangana, Rep. through its Secretary, Department of Civil Supplies, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 4 others …Petitioner …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. S.Rahul Reddy Counsel for the respondents: G.P FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES (TS) The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing December, 2014 quota of the essential commodities for distribution to the petitioner’s fair price shop, as illegal and arbitrary.
The petitioner pleaded that she is the authorized Fair Price Shop dealer of Nimmalagudem Village, Kothagudem Mandal, Khammam District and her authorization is valid upto 31.03.2016. She has further pleaded that she was also placed in-charge of Garibpet fair price shop, as the regular fair price shop dealer has resigned; that on 17.11.2014, the petitioner has obtained two demand drafts for the two fair price shops for lifting the quota of December, 2014; that on 28.11.2014, the lorry carrying the essential commodities pertaining to the petitioner’s fair price shop as well as that of Garibpet Village and also another village were seized and proceedings under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) appeared to have been initiated against the fair price shop dealer of Nayakulagudem Village and the driver of the lorry. However, the essential commodities for the two shops pertaining to the petitioner have not been released and that a representation was made by the petitioner on 12.12.2014 in that regard.
The petitioner has filed a copy of the panchanama dated 28.11.2014, a perusal of which would show that no allegations have been made against the petitioner.
The learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies (Telangana State) reported no instructions.
From the panchanama dated 28.11.2014 it prima facie appears that no allegations have been made against the petitioner. It is also the case of the petitioner that no order has been passed in respect of the authorization held by her. Even assuming that any proceedings under Section 6A of the Act have been initiated, that by itself could not deprive the fair price shop dealer of his/her right to run the shop so long as his/her authorization remains in force.
Therefore, respondents 4 and 5 are directed to release the essential commodities to the petitioner for distribution through the two fair price shops held by her so long as her authorization remains in force.
Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
As a sequel, WPMP.No.49364 of 2014, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.
C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J Date: 23.12.2014 va