THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.40118 of 2014
DATE: 27.12.2014
Between:
Smt. Vadlamudi Venkata Lakshmi Saroja Devi and The State of Andhra Pradesh and others …Petitioner …Respondents COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER : SRI K.RATNA SAGAR COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS : AGP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES (AP) THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.40118 of 2014
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside endorsement, dated 04.12.2014 made by respondent No.2 whereby he has rejected the petitioner’s application filed for condonation of delay of 2 years 9 months and 20 days in filing revision against the order of respondent No.3.
I have heard Sri K.Ratna Sagar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies (Andhra Pradesh) and perused the record.
The petitioner’s fair price shop authorization was cancelled by respondent No.5. Assailing the said cancellation, the petitioner has filed an appeal before respondent No.3, who by his order, dated 19.11.2011 has confirmed the order of respondent No.5. The petitioner has filed a revision petition against the said order after a lapse of 2 years 9 months and 20 days with an application to condone the delay. The only reason put forth by the petitioner for condonation of delay is that after she was acquitted in criminal case on 17.07.2013, she has filed the revision petition. Respondent No.2 has rejected the said application.
On a careful perusal of the reasons assigned by respondent No.2, I do not find any reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by him. The scope of criminal proceedings is distinct and different from that of the disciplinary proceedings and the petitioner was not expected to have remained quiet after suffering the order at the hands of respondent No.3 without filing the revision petition within the stipulated time. One other reason for which the petitioner’s application for condonation of delay deserved to be rejected was that while the criminal Court has acquitted the petitioner on 17.07.2013, she has filed revision petition on 11.08.2014 with a delay of more than one year.
Hence, I am not inclined to interfere with the order passed by respondent No.2.
For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.50311 of 2014 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 27th DECEMBER, 2014.
kvni