Tasleem Sultana v. The RDO, Karimnagar & Anr.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 403, 409
Judgment
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6143 of 2006
O R D E R: By means of filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a Mandamus directing the respondents to supply the essential commodities to her fair price shop bearing No.136 situated at Christian Colony, Karimnagar, since her authorization is subsisting. The petitioner, in whose favour the authorization was granted to distribute the essential commodities to the cardholders through fair price shop bearing No.136 situated at Christian Colony, Karimnagar, submits that the authorization was granted in her favour in 1995, the same was renewed from time to time and it is valid upto 31st March,
2006. She further submits that she made an application for renewal of the same on 22-03-2006. The 2nd respondent visited her fair price shop on 07-01-2006 and made a complaint to the police, II Town Police Station, Karimnagar, against her alleging the offences punishable under Sections 403 and 409 IPC and for necessary action. Based on the said complaint, the police registered a case in Crime No.9 of 2006 and the same is pending investigation. She contends that except the said allegation, there is no order either suspending or cancelling her authorization, and therefore, she is entitled to supply the essential commodities to the cardholders. In the circumstances, the respondents are under an obligation to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop as along as her authorization is subsisting and has not been cancelled. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the respondents to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner‘s fair price shop as long as her authorization is in force and has not been suspended. If the authorization has not been renewed, respondents are under an obligation to intimate the same to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ (A.GOPAL REDDY, J) 4th APRIL, 2006.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 403, 409.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 04 Apr 2006. The bench was A GOPAL REDDY.
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.