The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.33628 of 2014 Dated 11.11.2014 Between: M/s.Viswanadh Agencies …Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Prl.Secretary, Civil Supplies Dept., Hyderabad and another.
…Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.V.Padmaja Reddy Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies (AP) The Court made the following:
Order:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside the notice in Roc.90/2014 (CS5), dated 22-10-2014, issued by respondent No.2- Collector (CS) (incorrectly described as the District Collector (CS) in the cause title of the Writ Petition), calling upon the petitioner to deposit the sum of Rs.10,000/-, which was forfeited by him, vide proceeding in Roc.No.90.2014/CS, dated 07- 07-2014.
I have heard Smt.V.Padmaja Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies representing the respondents.
The petitioner is an LPG dealer. By the proceeding, dated 07-07-2014, referred to above, respondent No.2- Collector (CS) has imposed a penalty of Rs.10,000/- on the petitioner after enquiry on the allegation that its delivery boys have been collecting higher amount than the prescribed amount from the LPG consumers. Following the same, respondent No.2 has forfeited the security deposit of Rs.10,000/- made by the petitioner and adjusted the same towards the penalty. Thereafter, respondent No.2 vide proceeding, dated 22.10.2014, called upon the petitioner to replenish the security deposit of Rs.10,000/-. Assailing this order, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.
At the hearing, learned Counsel for the petitioner has not disputed that her client has unsuccessfully questioned the proceeding, dated 07-07-2014, issued by respondent No.2, imposing the penalty of Rs.10,000/-. In view of the fact that the said action of respondent No.2 was affirmed by this Court vide WP.No.30722 of 2014, dated 15-10-2014, respondent No.2 has rightly directed the petitioner to replenish the security deposit of Rs.10,000/-, which was adjusted towards the penalty imposed by him. In this view of the matter, I do not find any illegality in the impugned proceeding, dated 22-10-2014, issued by respondent No.2.
The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
As a sequel, WPMP.No.42063 of 2014, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.
(C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Dt: 11th November, 2014
LUR