P. Vijaya Kumari v. District
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Hence, these writ petitions are disposed of directing that as long as the petitioner
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 14, 21, 226
Judgment
Cause title
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 an order or direction, particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not releasing the essential commodities to the petitioner as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondents to continue the supply of essential commodities to the petitioner.
WRIT PETITION NO : 17346 of 2004 Between: P.Vijaya Kumari, W/o.Raju, F.P.Shop Dealer, Ramanala Vari palem, Tallur Mandal, Prakasam Dist. ..... PETITIONER
AND 1 The Revenue Divisional officer, Kandukuru, Prakasam Dist. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Tallur, Tallur Mandal, Prakasam 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 an order or direction, particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the order of the 1st respondent in L.Dis. No.2326/2004, dated 13-9-2004 as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory, violatiave of the principles of natural justice and Article 21 of the constitution of India, and contrary to the spirit of the A.P. scheduled commodities (Regulation of Distribution by card system) order, 1973, and consequently set-aside the same, and direct the respondents to continue the petitioner's F.P. shop licence. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.KASAJAGANMOHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE (Civil Supplies) The Court at the admission stage made the following :
COMMON ORDER:
Operative part
T h e petitioner was appointed as a temporary Dealer of the Fair Price Shop of Ramanalavaripalem Village, Tallur Mandal, Prakasam Dsitrict. The 1st respondent passed an order, dated 13.09.2004, directing the 2nd respondent not to allot essential commodities to the petitioner on the allegation that she was not distributing the commodities properly. W.P.No.17346 of 2004 is filed challenging the same. This Court passed an interim order on 24.09.2004, directing that the 2nd respondent shall release the essential commodities to the petitioner, if she holds a valid authorization and the same is subsisting. Complaining the essential commodities are not being supplied despite such orders, she filed W.P.No.19280 of 2004, seeking appropriate directions. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. A perusal of the order, dated 13.09.2004, discloses that the 1st respondent directed the 2nd respondent not to allot any essential commodities on the ground that the petitioner was not distributing them properly. If the authorization, be it temporary or permanent, is subsisting, the respondents cannot refuse to supply the essential commodities. Such a course of action would amount to disregarding a valid authorization. If a particular Dealer is found to be resorting to any irregularities, the respondents are vested with the power to take appropriate action. Till such an action is taken, the supplies cannot be discontinued. Hence, these writ petitions are disposed of directing that as long as the petitioner holds a valid authorization in her favour, the 2n d respondent shall supply the essential commodities to her. There shall be no order as to costs. __________
15.12.2004 Note: Issue C.C. in two days (B/o) Jsu To 1 The Revenue Divisional officer, Kandukuru, Prakasam Dist. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Tallur, Tallur Mandal, Prakasam District. 3 2CCs to the G.P. for Revenue, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. (O.U.T) 4 2 CD copies.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Hence, these writ petitions are disposed of directing that as long as the petitioner
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 14, 21, 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 15 Dec 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.