Andhra Pradesh High Court · 2004
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the respondents shall
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 14, 19, 21, 226
- Essential Commodities Act, 1955
Judgment
Cause title
Smt.M.Zakirabi W/o.M.Zakir Hussain R/o.Jupadu Banglow Village and Mandal Kurnool District. AND ..... PETITIONER
1 The Revenue Divisional Officer Kurnool. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer Jupadu Banglow Mandal, Kurnool District .....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction, preferable to the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the oral instructions to Shabana who is the daughter of the associate of said Mala to distribute the commodities for shop No.18 of Jupadu Banglow Village and Mandal, Kurnool district ignoring the petitioner who is a permanent dealer of shop No.18 and who's license and authorization is subsisting only yielding to the political pressures, as illegal, arbitrary, and violation of Articles 14, 19,21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to distribute the commodities for the said shop. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.RATHANGA PANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court at the stage of admission made the following
ORDER:
Petitioner was appointed as a Fair Price Shop Dealer, vide proceedings dated
Operative part
13.03.2002, passed by the first respondent. It is her case that there are no complaints against her about running of the shop and that the authorization is still subsisting. She complains that the second respondent, Mandal Revenue Officer, Jupadu Banglow Mandal, has entrusted the dealer of neighbouring shop, to distribute the commodities in the area, for which the petitioner is the Fair Price Shop Dealer. She alleges that the same was resorted to under the pressure of the local M.L.A. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. The allegations of the petitioner, if true, present a sad reflection of the functioning of the Civil Supplies Department. The State Government has framed Control Orders, from time to time, in exercise of powers under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for the distribution of essential commodities. Once a dealer is appointed for a particular fair price shop, he is entitled to undertake the distribution of the commodities, in accordance with the relevant terms and conditions. Permitting another dealer or agency to undertake the distribution of commodities in an area entrusted to an existing distributor is unknown to law, and if at all anything, represents lawlessness. Since the complete facts are not before this Court, it is difficult to record any definite finding, in this regard. This much can be said that the practice said to have been resorted to by the second respondent, if true, cannot be permitted. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the respondents shall ensure the distribution of essential commodities, for which the petitioner was appointed as a fair price shop dealer, is undertaken by the petitioner herself and not by any other agency, during the subsistence of such authorization. There shall be no order as to costs. ----------------------
29.11.2004 To 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer Kurnool. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer Jupadu Banglow Mandal, Kurnool District 3 Two CCs. to the G.P. for Civil Supplies, High Court of A.P.,Hydeabad (OUT). 4 Two CD copies.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the respondents shall
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 14, 19, 21, 226; Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 29 Nov 2004. The bench was L NARASIMHA 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.