Friday, 01, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Smt Gutta Padmavathi vs Neerukonda Venkata Lakshmi
2024 Latest Caselaw 998 AP

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 998 AP
Judgement Date : 6 February, 2024

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Smt Gutta Padmavathi vs Neerukonda Venkata Lakshmi on 6 February, 2024

Author: R. Raghunandan Rao

Bench: R. Raghunandan Rao

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                  &
           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

                     WRIT APPEAL No.84 of 2024

Smt. Gutta Padmavathi, W/o. Yamalaiah,
Aged 54 years, Occ: PDF Dealer, R/o.D.No.2-4A,
Govindapuram Village, Chilakaluripeta Mandal,
Palnadu District, erstwhile Guntur District.

                                                        ... Appellant
                               Versus

Neerukonda Venkata Lakshmi, W/o. Vijaya Bhaskar Rao,
Durga Priyanka Mahila Podupu Group,
Fair Price Shop Dealer for Shop No.0745054, Hindu,
Aged 40 years, Occ: Ration Dealer, R/o. Govindapuram Village,
Chilakaluripet Mandal, Palnadu District, A.P. and six others.

                                                      ...Respondents

Mr. S. V. S. S. Sivaram, Counsel for the appellant.

Mr. Venkata Ramarao Kota, Counsel for respondent No.1.

Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

Government Pleader for Revenue, Counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 7.

DATE : 06.02.2024 P.C.:

1. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against

the judgment and order dated 06.12.2023 passed in W.P.No.31135

of 2023.

HCJ & RRR, J

2. Briefly stated the material facts are as under:

The petitioner before the learned single Judge, respondent

No.1 herein, was a fair price shop dealer whose dealership was

suspended by virtue of the impugned order dated 16.11.2023

passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet Division.

3. The petitioner's case was that the order impugned was

unsustainable as it was contrary to the principles of natural justice

and violative of the constitutional guarantees as enshrined under

Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. The learned

single Judge by virtue of judgment and order impugned, set aside

the order impugned dated 16.11.2023, by placing reliance upon a

judgment rendered in W.P.No.5800 of 2020, dated 06.04.2021,

treating the facts of the case in W.P.No.31135 of 2023, as similar to

the one's which were before the Court in W.P.No.5800 of 2020.

4. We have gone through the judgment and order dated

06.04.2021 rendered in W.P.No.5800 of 2020. It can be seen that

the learned single Judge in the said judgment and order had set

aside the order impugned primarily on the ground that it was an

unreasoned order and secondly that no opportunity of being heard

had been granted to the petitioner in that case.

HCJ & RRR, J

In the present case, learned counsel for appellant/respondent

No.7 in the writ petition, representing the fair price shop dealer,

who had been appointed temporarily on account of the order of

cancellation of the dealership of respondent No.1 herein, would

submit that the judgment and order impugned in the present appeal

was not at all similar to the one relied upon by the learned single

Judge, inasmuch as this was not a case where either the principles

of natural justice had been violated or the order was an unreasoned

order.

5. We have gone through the order impugned which was passed

by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet and find that the

same cannot be said to be an unreasoned order. In our opinion, the

issue as to whether the principles of natural justice had been

violated or not also is an issue which needs to be gone into in

greater detail by the learned single Judge. In any case we are of the

opinion that the judgment relied upon by the learned single Judge

passed in W.P.No.5800 of 2020 was quite inapt in the facts and

circumstances of the present case.

6. For the reasons mentioned above, we set aside the judgment

and order impugned and remand the matter to the learned single

Judge for consideration afresh on merits. Till such time as the HCJ & RRR, J

learned single Judge passes an order afresh, status quo be

maintained.

7. The writ appeal is, accordingly, allowed. No order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

SSN HCJ & RRR, J

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

DATE : 06.02.2024

SSN

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter