SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(AP) 994

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
R. Sandhya Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Sub-Collector – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:A. Prabhakar Rao, Advocate.
For the Respondent: AGP for Civil Supplies.

Judgment

Utter lack of comprehension on the part of respondent No.1 has lead to passing of Order, dated 26-09-2012, in Proceeding No.G/I/321/2007, which is impugned in this Writ Petition.

The petitioner is a temporary fair price shop dealer of shop No.19, Parsi Village, Govindaraopet Mandal, Warangal District. Respondent No.1 has issued proceeding, dated 06-09-2012, cancelling the petitioner's temporary authorisation. Feeling aggrieved by the said Order, the petitioner filed WP.No.29287 of 2012. This Court, while allowing the said Writ Petition on the ground that the order of cancellation was not preceded by any notice, made the following observations:

"A reading of the impugned order does not show that any enquiry was held before cancelling the petitioner's temporary authorization. Respondent No.1 has merely relied upon a purported report dated 27.08.2008 submitted under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Under Clause 5(5) of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 before cancelling an authorization, it is incumbent upon the appointing authority to issue a notice and hold an enquiry. As this procedure does not appear to have been followed as evi




Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top