B Mallesham v. The State Of Telangana

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT WRIT PETITION No.34998 OF 2016 ORDER:

Heard Mr.B.Vijasen Reddy for petitioner and the Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.

The petitioner challenges Memo dated 06.09.2016. Through the impugned Memo, the 4th respondent directed the petitioner to relocate F.P. Shop No.09 from H.No.5-5-169 to Gandhi Nagar Colony, Ward No.22.

Counsel for petitioner has primarily confined the challenge to the Memo impugned in the writ petition on two grounds, namely assuming the power to issue directions in accordance with G.O.Rt. No.55 dated 12.05.2015 is available with the respondents, still while ordering relocation of F.P. shop of 33 years' standing, the petitioner ought to have been put on notice, the explanation, if any, given by the petitioner is considered and appropriate decision is taken. Alternatively, even if shifting of F.P. shop is unavoidable and warranted in the larger convenience and interest of card holders, still sufficient time either for identification, shifting or relocation should have been considered by 4th respondent. Therefore, he prays for setting aside the Memo, alternatively, give liberty to petitioner to approach the Sub-Collector/ respondent No.3 for appropriate reliefs.

I have perused the Memo dated 06.09.2016. It is not disputed by the petitioner that the respondents can rationalise records and in the process, take note of distance and convenience of the card holders, but the certain grievance pointed out against the Memo is

that without putting the petitioner on notice or hearing the petitioner on the inconvenience faced by the existing card holders or the convenience the card holders are going to have with the shifting, Memo impugned in the writ petition has been passed. The Memo is more in the nature of administrating the Public Distribution System and the same is within the jurisdiction of respondents, but the respondents ought to have heard the petitioner before passing the impugned Memo. Instead of keeping the writ petition pending or considering the legal objections, this Court to meet the ends of justice, considers to dispose of the writ petition as follows:

The petitioner is given liberty to represent to 3rd respondent by enclosing a copy of this order with all the objections/ reasons the petitioner has in the matter of shifting the F.P. Shop from H. No.5-5169 to Gandhi Nagar Colony, Ward No.22, within one week from today. The 3rd respondent is directed to consider, examine the issue, take appropriate decision as is warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case, without fail, within a further period of six weeks. The parties are directed to maintain status quo as on date vis-à-vis F. P. Shop at 5-5-169 for a period of eight (8) weeks from today.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.

______________ S.V.BHATT, J Date:18-10-2016 Note:

C.C. in two days.

B/ o.

Stp