Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 22285 (AP)

NEELAM NAVANEETHAMMA v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

WP/15951/2025 · 2025-07-06

T C D Sekhar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010314182025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) 0;i(0 0 MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 15951 OF 2025 Between: Neelam Navaneethamma, W/o. RAJESH, Aged 52 years, FP Shop dealer, Shop. No.0845043, R/o. Ommevaram Village, Naguluppalapadu Prakasam District. Mandal, ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Supplies, Secretariat at Velagapudi Amaravathi, Guntur District 2. The Collector and District Magistrate, Prakasam District, Ongole. 3. The Collector (CS), Prakasam District, Ongole. 4. The District Supply Officer, Civil Supplies, Collectorate, Ongole-523001 Prakasam District. 5. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, Prakasam District 6. The Tahsildar, Naguluppalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District. 7. The Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Ongole-1, Prakasam District. 8. Smt. Kangala Rajani, W/o. Late Kangala Punnaiah, 2 Group, Ommevaram Village, Naguluppalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District, A.P. Civil nd Leader, Vasavi ...Respondents {R8 is impleaded as per Court’s Order dt. 07.07.2025 in lA No. 02 of 2025 in Writ Petition and Affidavit) 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 a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, to declaring the in action of 5th respondent-R.D.O. , Ongole, who has not conclude the disciplinary proceedings even though 90 days is completed, is wholly illegal, arbitrary and opposed to the spirit of Judgments of this Hon’ble High Court and against the mandatory provisions of control orders 2018 clause 8(4) and also violate of principals of natural justice and without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondents to restore the authorization of petitioner and to continue the petitioner as FP Shop dealer. Shop No 0845043 of Ommavaram Village, Naguluppalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 to direct the respondents to allot/supply the Commodities to petitioner Shop No; 0845043 of Ommavaram Village, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition . Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VM CHIRANJEEVI KOLLA Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 7; GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES Counsel for the Respondent No.8: SRI ALAPATI VIVEKANANDA The Court made the following order: 1 TCDSJ W.P.No.15951 of 2029 APHC010314182025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 15951/2025 Between: 1.NEELAM NAVANEETHAMMA, W/0. RAJESH, AGED 52 YEARS, FP SHOP DEALER, SHOP. N0.0845043, R/0. OMMEVARAM VILLAGE, NAGULUPPALAPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES, SECRETARIAT AT VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2.THE COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ONGOLE. 3.THE COLLECTORCS, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ONGOLE. 4.THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, , CIVIL SUPPLIES, COLLECTORATE, ONGOLE-523001, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 5.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 6.THE TAHSILDAR, NAGULUPPALAPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 7.THE ENFORCEMENT DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, ONGOLE-1, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 TCDS.J W.P.No.15951 of 2025 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 a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, to declaring the in action of 5th respondent-R.D.O., Ongole, who has not conclude the disciplinary proceedings even though 90 days is completed is wholly Illegal, arbitrary and opposed to the spirit of Judgments of this Hon ble High Court and against the mandatory provisions of control orders 2018 clause 8(4) and also violate of principals of natural justice and without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondents to restore the authorization of petitioner and to continue the petitioner as FP Shop dealer. Shop No 0845043 of Ommavaram Village, Naguluppalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District, and lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 to direct the respondents to allot/supply the Commodities to petitioner Shop No: 0845043 Ommavaram Village, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass lA NO: 2 OF 2025 pass of 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 to permit the petitioner to be impleaded as Party/Proposed Respondent No.8 in W.P. No.15951/2025 and also in pending interlocutory Application therein in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner; 1.VM CHIRANJEEVI KOLLA Counsel for the Respondent(S); 1.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES 3 TCDS.J W.P.N0.1S9S1 of 2025 The Court made the following order; The present writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in not concluding the disciplinary proceedings despite completion of 90 days period as per Clause 8(4) of the Control Orders 2018. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned 2. Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies brought to the notice of this Court that the authorization of the petitioner was cancelled by proceedings dated 05.07.2025. The copy of the same is placed before this Court. In view of the same, the cause in the writ petition does 3. not survive. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as 4. infructuous. It is needless to mention that the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the said proceedings if he is so advised. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M. PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. One CC to Sri VM Chiranjeevi Kolia, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri Alapati Vivekananda, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to GP for Civil Supplies, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 4. Two CD Copies TF HIGH COURT DATED:07/07/2025 ORDER WP NO. 15951 OF 2025 5 3 t JUI- 2075 m 60, ^ , Current Section ^ % %a££®r*ATCt5^!^' DISMISSING THE W.P. AS INFRUCTUOUS, WITHOUT COSTS