PULI VENKATASUBBA REDDY v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 151
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no stay granted in this writ petition so far and the petitioner wants to restrict his relief and sought direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer to conclude the enquiry within stipulated time, accordingly, prayed to…
- Para 55. Taking their submissions into consideration, as the relief sought is restricted and thereby sought a direction to the RDO to conclude the enquiry within stipulated period, this Court, without going into the merits and demerits of the matter, is inclined to dispose of the…
Judgment
Cause title
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No.3 to continue me as fair price shop dealer by suspending the proceedings in Ref. No.A3/1352/2025, dated 01.12.2025 issued by the respondentNo.3, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased May be pleased 1. to permit me to bring the proposed respondent No.6 as respondent No.6 in l.A.No.1 of 2025 and also in the W.P.No.36629 of 2025 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. PAPUDIPPU SASHIDAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3
ORDER:
Questioning the proceedings vide Ref. No.A3/1352/2025 dated
01.12.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent suspending the petitioner’s authorization in respect of Fair Price Shop No.1115090 situated in Chowdur Village, Proddatur Mandal, Y.S.R. District, the present writ petition is filed.
Heard Sri Papudippu Sashidhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Appasani Vineeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no stay granted in this writ petition so far and the petitioner wants to restrict his relief and sought direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer to conclude the enquiry within stipulated time, accordingly, prayed to pass appropriate orders.
To the said submission, Sri Appasani Vineeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies reported no objection.
Operative part
Taking their submissions into consideration, as the relief sought is restricted and thereby sought a direction to the RDO to conclude the enquiry within stipulated period, this Court, without going into the merits and demerits of the matter, is inclined to dispose of the writ petition by passing the following order: 4
The Revenue Divisional Officer concerned is directed to conclude the enquiry within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order else the suspension order of the petitioner shall be revoked.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. Date: 04th February, 2026 RKS _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 01 Dec 2025. The bench was RAVI CHEEMALAPATI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.