The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.31157 of 2014 Dated 17.10.2014 Between:
M.Chandra Reddy And The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Commissioner, Civil Supplies Dept Hyderabad and 4 others.
…Petitioner …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.Bollam Lingaiah Yadav Counsel for the respondents: GP for Civil Supplies (TG) The Court made the following:
Order:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.4 in changing Panchanama, dated 09.10.2014, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential relief of setting aside the said Panchanama.
I have perused the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, which shows that the petitioner was the authorized dealer of fair price shop No.6 at Rallaguda, Shamshabad Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District; that his shop was inspected on 09-10-2014 by respondent No.5 and others; that having found certain small variations in the stock, respondent No.2 has prepared the Panchanama by obtaining signatures in the presence of three persons viz., Nerati Narayana, Mallela Eshwaraiah and P.Nagesh Yadav; and that respondent No.2 has, allegedly, torn off the said panchanama and prepared another one with false allegations and with the signatures of three panchanamadars viz., Konkara Raghu, Mamidipalli Jangaiah and P.Nagesh Yadav (the latter also, allegedly, figured as panchanamadar No.3 in the earlier panchanama).
Except raising an averment regarding the preparation of new panchanama by tearing off the earlier one, the petitioner has not substantiated the same by filing affidavits of the panchanamadars, who have, allegedly, subscribed their signatures on the earlier panchanama, and any other evidence. In my opinion, this Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not expected to probe into the allegations falling in the realm of the issues of fact. Therefore, the petitioner is permitted to make a detailed representation to respondent No.2 along with the evidence, if any, in support of these allegations within one week from the date of receipt of this order. Within one month thereafter, respondent No.2 shall hold a detailed enquiry, pass appropriate order on such representation and communicate the same to the petitioner. The petitioner is free to avail further remedies available to him in law, in the event he feels aggrieved by the order that may be passed by respondent No.2.
Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
As a sequel, WPMP.No.38949 of 2014, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.
(C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Dt: 17th October, 2014
LUR