MARAPU SUBBA RAO Vs. TAHSILDAR MANDAVALLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance of the Petitioner in this writ petition is that despite interim stay granted by the Special Commissioner, Civil Supplies, Hyderabad, Respondent No. 1 has not been supplying kerosene to the Petitioner. The facts pleaded by the Petitioner would reveal that his Kerosene Hawker Licence was cancelled by Respondent No. 2 vide his order, dated 04.01.2010. The Petitioner filed a statutory appeal before the Special Commissioner, Civil Supplies, and vide his CCS. Proc. No. E2/222/2010, dated 16.01.2010, he stayed the operation of the order of Respondent No. 2. The grievance of the Petitioner is that notwithstanding the said order, Respondent No. 1 has not been supplying the kerosene to the Petitioner for sale.

(2.) In my opinion, this writ petition is virtually in the nature of an execution petition. It is the bounden duty of Respondent No. 1 to respect the orders passed by his superior authorities, more so, when such orders were passed in exercise of their quasi-judicial powers. If such orders are defied by the implementing agencies, the authority, which passed the order, cannot remain a silent spectator driving the citizens to avail remedies, like filing the writ petition. The conduct of Respondent No. 1 in ignoring the order passed by the competent authority does not augur well in a society governed by rule of law. Hopefully, the Special Commissioner, Civil Supplies, will take note of the conduct of Respondent No. 1 in ignoring his order and do the needful in redressing the grievance of the Petitioner. The Petitioner is permitted to make a representation to the Special Commissioner of Civil Supplies in this regard. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P. No. 37252 of 2010 filed by the Petitioner for interim relief is disposed of infructuous.