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

2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 19215

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
V.SUJATHA
CHAKALI RAVI KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF AP – Respondent
WP 14694/2023



APHC010285842023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3333]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 14694/2023 Between:

1. C HAKALI RAVI KUMAR, S/O. CHAKALI CHINNA MADDILETY, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC. FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, RIO. H.NO. 2- 30, K. NAGALAPURAM VILLAGE, GUDUR MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND

1. T HE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT

2. T HE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT

3. T HE TAHSILDHAR, GUDUR MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S):

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned orders of the 2nd respondent in Rc.DT(LR)1020 /2023, dated 29.05.2023 in suspending the authorization of the petitioner as fair price shop dealer to Shop No. 1306019 of K. Nagalapuram. Village, Gudur Mandal, Kurnool District, as illegal, arbitrary and in flagrant disregard to law and consequently set aside the same aforesaid orders of the 3rd respondent and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer to Shop No. 1306019 of K. Nagalapuram Village, Gudur Mandal, Kurnool District by suspending the impugned orders of the 2nd respondent in Rc.DT(LR)1020/2023, dated 29.05.2023 pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to vacate the Interim order dated 22.06.2023 passed in I.A.NO. 1 of

2023 in W.P.No. 14694 of 2023 and dismiss the Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. K RATHANGA PANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following:

ORDER:

The present writ petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“…to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned orders of the 2nd respondent in Rc.DT(LR)1020 /2023, dated 29.05.2023 in suspending the authorization of the petitioner as fair price shop dealer to Shop No.1306019 of K. Nagalapuram. Village, Gudur Mandal, Kurnool District, as illegal, arbitrary and in flagrant disregard to law and consequently set aside the same aforesaid orders of the 3rd respondent ….”

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

a) The petitioner was appointed as a Fair Price Shop dealer for Shop No.1306019 of K.Nagalapuram Village, Gudur Mandal, Kurnool District in the year 2018 and his authorization was subsisting till 31.03.2023. Since the date of his appointment, the petitioner has been distributing essential commodities to the cardholders without there being any complaint either from the cardholders or from the concerned authorities.

b) While the things stood thus, the 3rd respondent has submitted a report to the 2nd respondent alleging that during the inspection conducted over the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop on 10.05.2023, a shortage of 369 kgs of PDS rice and 8 packets of R.G. dal was noticed in the ground stock. Basing on the said report, the 2nd respondent issued a show-cause notice dated 15.05.2023 framing a single charge and calling for an explanation from the petitioner within seven days from the date of receipt of the said notice. For which, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 17.05.2023 duly stating that the MDU operator has ma

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 Back to top