Consumer affairs, food & civil supplies - Bifurcation of fair shop in between two villages - Their lordships held that by itself would not offer justification for the respondents to bifurcate the petitioners fair price shop leaving it completely unviable. If the respondents feel that the essential commodities need to be distributed in the two Villages of Vaddepalli and Kondugaripalle, they can direct the petitioner to arrange such distribution in those Villages on particular days by paying transportation expenses to her.- Writ allowed - 2015 Telangana & A.P. msklawreports



Law :- Writ Proceedings
Sub :- bifurcation of her shop is that it is patently in contravention of
the norms contained in G.O.Ms.No.35, Consumer Affairs, Food &
Civil Supplies (CS-1) Department, dated 17.09.2007.
Summary :-
G.O.Ms.No.35, Consumer Affairs, Food &
Civil Supplies (CS-1) Department, dated 17.09.2007. The
petitioner relied upon Clause-6(v) of the said G.O., which reads
as under:
Rural areas: Each Gram Panchayat (v) should have
atleast one F.P. shop with a minimum of 400 BPL
cards and 50 APL cards. In case, there are more
number of cards in excess of the minimum number
of cards i.e., 400 BPL and 50 APL in a village there
can be two F.P. shops, provided the total number of
BPL cards in that village is not less than 600 and the
number of BPL and APL cards should be attached to
the two Fair Price Shops equally.
Held that :-
(a)     Rural areas: The number of the Iris based
ration cards to be attached to each fair price
shop is 400 to 450 BPL and 50 pink cards.

     No doubt, the respondents sought to justify bifurcation of
the petitioners fair price shop on the ground that the card
holders of Vaddepalli Village have to travel about 5 kms and
that of Kondugaripalle Village have to travel about 3 kms. In my
opinion, that by itself would not offer justification for the
respondents to bifurcate the petitioners fair price shop leaving
it completely unviable. If the respondents feel that the essential
commodities need to be distributed in the two Villages of
Vaddepalli and Kondugaripalle, they can direct the petitioner to
arrange such distribution in those Villages on particular days by
paying transportation expenses to her.

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS

DVC CASE - Practice & Procedure - Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12-the Magistrate need not, nay shall not issue warrant for securing presence of respondent - the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for each adjournment like in criminal cases.-if the respondents failed to turn up after receiving notice and file their counter affidavit if any,pass an exparte order by virtue of the power conferred on him under Sec.23 of the D.V.Act.-only under exceptional circumstances, if the Magistrate feels required, he may issue warrants for securing the presence of the concerned party. -2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS( Telegana)