K. PRAMEELA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
LAWS(APH)-2019-10-7
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on October 15,2019

K. Prameela Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

U. Durga Prasad Rao, J. - (1.)The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings of second respondent in D.Dis.C1/241/2018 dated 12.11.2018 in upholding the order of third respondent in appeal filed by the petitioner vide proceedings in D.Dis.C1/105/2018 dated 02.08.2018 confirming the orders of fourth respondent in his proceedings in D.Dis.B/5557/2017 dated 20.03.2018 cancelling the authorisation of petitioner's Fair Price Shop No.10, Ammagaripalle Village, Penumur Mandal, Chittoor District, as illegal, arbitrary and against the rules contained in the A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 and more particularly violation of the principles of natural justice and consequently setting aside the said proceedings of second respondent and direct the petitioner to continue the aforesaid Fair Price Shop.
(2.)Heard Sri T.Balaji, learned counsel for petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies representing the respondents.
(3.)As can be seen, against the order of third respondent, the petitioner filed revision before the second respondent, who is the Collector, Chittoor. The main plank of the argument of learned counsel for petitioner is that while the revision was pending petitioner's son who was aged 33 years died suddenly on 28.10.2018 due to cardiac arrest. The revision was posted before the second respondent on 10.11.2018. Since the petitioner was under severe bereavement, she could not physically attend before the second respondent and hence, her brother attended before the second respondent. The counsel for petitioner also could not be present due to some pressing urgency. The brother of petitioner apprised about the plight of the petitioner to second respondent and requested for adjournment. However, the second respondent without granting time passed an ex parte order confirming the order of third respondent and thereby the petitioner was severely prejudiced. Learned counsel thus prayed to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the second respondent and give an opportunity to the petitioner to represent her case through her counsel.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.