[ad_1]
Telangana High Court
K.P. Siva vs The State Of Telangana on 14 May, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI
W.P.NO. 33817 OF 2024
ORDER:
In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a Writ of
Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.2 in
issuing order No.1/2646/2024 dated 21.11.2024, terminating
the dealership of the petitioner for Fair price Shop No.2386001,
Balnepally Village, Adivideverapalli Mandal, Nalgonda District,
Telangana State, as illegal, arbitrary and against the rules of
civil supply and unconstitutional and consequently to set aside
the same and to continue the petitioner as dealer of the said
Fair price Shop and to pass such other order or orders in the
interest of justice.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ
petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a fair price
shop dealer of fair price shop No.2386001 around fourteen
years back and it is stated that around four years back with
support of local MLA, Kanigiri Srinu, S/o.Harinarayana, the
shop of the petitioner has been forcibly taken from him and the
said person acted as a dealer in the name of the petitioner
without his consent and it is only after the elections, that the
petitioner has made representation dated 24.09.2024 to the
2
respondent No.2 with a request to hand over the fair price shop
and after considering the representation of the petitioner, the
respondent No.2 issued a circular to the respondent no.4 on
15.10.2024 to take necessary action, but the petitioner learnt
that in the last week of September-2024 itself, the authorities
have handed over the shop to another dealer as incharge. It is
submitted that Kanigiri Srinu, S/o.Harinarayana was having
political influence in the Mandal and due to the same, he
continued as a dealer in the place of the petitioner in spite of
several complaints filed by the petitioner. It is submitted that in
spite of knowing the above fact, the revenue authorities have
not taken any action and that Kanigiri Srinu, taking advantage
of the illiterate card holders of whom 80% are belonging to ST
Community, and he misused the commodities. It is submitted
that basing on the complaint made by the petitioner as well as
other card holders only, the respondent No.4 has made
enquiries and consequently, the respondent No.2 has directed
to take over the shop. It is submitted that the petitioner’s
representation to handover the shop has not been considered
and on the other hand, vide proceedings dated 21.11.2024, the
authorized dealership of the petitioner has been cancelled.
Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
3
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the
above submissions.
4. Learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies has
relied upon the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by
the respondent No.2 and submitted that on enquiry conducted
by the respondent No.4, it had come to the light that the
petitioner was not running the fair price shop at Balnepally
Villlage and that he has let out the fair price shop to an
unauthorized person by name Kanigiri Srinu, which is in clear
violation of the rules and regulations of the TSPDS Control
Order-2016 and further that the petitioner was also appointed
as temporarily fair price shop dealer and since he was not
maintaining the fair price shop and he has not taken any prior
permission from the respondents before letting out the said fair
price shop to Kanigiri Srinu, the respondent No.4 has tagged the
fair price shop to a nearby fair price shop to avoid
inconvenience to the fair price shop card holders and the order
dated 21.11.2024 cancelling the dealership of the petitioner has
been passed in accordance with rules and regulations. It is
submitted that the petitioner himself has admitted that he has
not been maintaining the fair price shop for the past four years.
4
It is submitted that the contention of the petitioner that the fair
price shop was forcibly taken from him, is not substantiated by
any police complaint or any representation from the petitioner.
5. Having regard to the rival contentions and the
material on record, this Court finds that on the earlier occasion,
the petitioner had filed W.P.No.286001 of 2024 for non-
consideration of his representation and this Court, vide orders
dated 24.10.2024, had directed the respondents to consider the
representation of the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders
thereon. Accordingly, the respondents appear to have made
enquiries and have passed the impugned order. However, it
appears that no notice has been given to the petitioner and no
explanation has been called for from him before cancellation of
his authorization.
6. In view thereof, this Court deems it fit and proper to
set aside the impugned order dated 21.11.2024 and direct the
respondents to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner
and thereafter, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
7. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. There
shall be no order as to costs.
5
8. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ
petition, shall stand closed.
____________________________
JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI
Date: 14.05.2025
bak
[ad_2]
Source link