IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE -- PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTIC AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATk WRIT APPEAL NO: 225 OF 2025^ Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 30-12-2024 in W. P.No.28717 of 2024 on the file of the High Court. Between: M. Narayana, S/o Sanjappa, Aged about 52 years, Occ: FP Shop Dealer, Nandivargam Village, Banaganapalli Mandal, Nandyal District. ...APPELLANT^ AND 1. The State of A.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supply Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Collector (Civil Supply), Nandyal, Nandyal District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dhone, Nandyal District. 4. The Tahsildar, Banaganapalli Mandal, Nandyal District. 5. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Banaganapalli Mandal, Nandyal District. ...RESPONDENTS . 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 responderrts 3 and 4 to allow the petitioner to functioning as the Fair Price Shop Dealer for FP Shop No. 1344037, Nandivargam Village, Banaganapalli Mandal, Nandyal District, by suspending the operation of the order dated 19-11-2024, issued by the 3 Respondent, pending disposal of this writ appeal.^ rd 'f; Counsel for the Appellant: SRI INENI VENKATA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI MATTEGUNTA SUDHIR, SC FOR ZPP, MPP & GRAM PANCHAYAT ••**1 .f « f V n; 4 .9 The Court made the following: JUDGMENT APHC010117602025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) r' [3483] WRIT APPEAL NO: 225/2025 Between: ...APPELLANT M. Narayana, AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of A P and Others Counsel for the Appellant: 1.INENI VENKATA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES 2.Mattegunta.Sudhir,Standing Counsel For Z.P.Ps,M.P.Ps,Gram Panchayats CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE: 18.03.2025 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Ravi Cheemalapati) Feeling aggrieved by the orders dated 30.12.2024 passed in W.P.No.28717 of 2024, the petitioner in the said writ petition preferred this intra Court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The facts that led to filing of the writ appeal, in brief, are that: 2. (a) The petitioner/appellant herein was appointed as a fair price shop to Shop No.1344037, Nandivaram Village, dealer in the year 1991 Banaganapalli Mandal, Nandyal district and carrying out his responsibilities for over 33 years without any complaints whatsoever. While so, the Revenue Divisional Officer(RDO), Nandyal District, basing on the report of tahsildar (4^^ respondent) issued a show cause notice dated 08.11.2024 to the petitioner alleging that he is holding two posts simultaneously, namely. Fair Price Shop Dealer and Mandal Parishad Territorial Constituency (MPTC), since 2021, contrary to provisions (particularly Para XII (i) and (ii)) in G.O.Ms.No.32 dated 03.12.2018 issued by the Consumer Affairs, Food & Civil Supplies Department, which explicitly prohibits individuals from holding two posts simultaneously. The petitioner had submitted his explanation on 15.11.2024 stating that, he is unaware of the said G.O.Ms.No.32 dated 03.12.2018 and expressed his willingness, to resign from the MPTC post and to continue In spite of the same, without considering the serving as a FP Shop Dealer, explanation in a right perspective, the RDO had cancelled the authorization of the petitioner to run fair price shop vide proceedings dated 19.11.2024. On 25.11.2024, the petitioner had submitted an unconditional resignation from the post of MPTC to the 5*^ respondent (MPDO) and simultaneously requested the RDO to revoke the cancellation of his FP Shop Dealership but the RDO has not acted upon the same. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant had filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.28717 of 2024 before this Court which was also dismissed on 30.12.2024 on the ground that, as on 19.11.2024, the petitioner of G.O.Ms.No.32 dated is holding two posts, contrary to the provisions 03.12.2018 and also except the resignation letter, the order of acceptance of his resignation was not filed so far. Assailing the same, the writ petitioner had preferred the present appeal. Heard Sri I.Venkata Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant and learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 3. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant herein while reiterating the of appeal and contents of the writ affidavit submitted that, the of the said G.O.Ms.No.32 dated 03.12.2018 and after he has given resignation to the MPTC post on 25.11.2024 not considered by the authorities concerned. He further submitted that, while dismissing the writ petition, the learned Single judge has grounds petitioner is unaware noticing the same but the same was observed that, except resignation letter dated 25.11.2024, the order accepting resignation of the petitioner has not been filed. The learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that, the petitioner has rendered an unconditional resignation to the 5‘^ respondent on 25.11.2024 and he is unaware of the acceptance of the said resignation by the 5‘^ respondent. In view of the same, the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition and failed to consider that, if the impugned order dated 19.11.2024, cancelling the not set aside, the petitioner the petitioner’s authorization to run the FP shop, is would be put to suffer irreparable loss and hardship. Hence, prayed to allow writ appeal. 4 5. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader while justifying the learned Single Judge and the cancellation order of RDO the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ order of the contended that, petition on the vaiid grounds. The petitioner has not raised any vaiid ground the interference of this Court and the writ appeai deserves warranting dismissal and accordingly prayed to dismiss the present appeal. 6. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel. 7. The Revenue Divisional Officer has cancelled the authorization of the petitioner’s (appellant herein) fair price shop under proceedings dated 19.11.2024, on the ground that, the petitioner is holding two posts (Fair Price Dealership and MPTC post) simultaneously, contrary to provisions of Shop G.O.Ms.No.32 dated 03.12.2018, which explicitly prohibits individuals from Subsequently, on 25.11.2024, the unconditional resignation from the post of MPTC holding two posts simultaneously. petitioner had submitted an respondent (MPDO) and simultaneously requested the RDO to to the 5 revoke the cancellation of his FP Shop Dealership. As the respondents have the petitioner filed the writ petition W.P.No.28717 of dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that, letter dated 25.11.2024, the order of acceptance of his 19.11.2024, since the not acted upon the same. 2024 which was except the resignation resignation was petitioner was a MPTC, contrary to the provisions not filed so far and further, as on member of MPTC, he cannot be a dealer and member of of G.O.Ms.No.32 dated 03.12.2018. The '4.' relevant portion of Para XII (i) and (ii)) in G.O.Ms.No.32 dated 03.12.2018 is extracted hereunder: ■■■XII.General:- All individuals holding any Public Office like Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, President of Mandal Praja Parishad, Chairman of Zilla Praia Parishad, Presidents of Co-operative Societies, Councillors or Chairman of Municipality/Members of Zilla Parishad Territorial Constituency (ZPTC) etc., or holding any office of profit irrespective of the reservation shall not be eligible; Every F.P.Shop dealer shall give an undertaking to the appointing authority concerned that he/she shall relinquish the fair price shop dealership if he/she is elected to any public office; (i) (ii) As could be observed from the record, the petitioner has submitted his resignation from the post of MPTC on 25.11.2024 whereas the RDO has cancelled the authorization of petitioner to run the fair price shop on 19.11.2024, which means, by the time of cancellation of authorization by the RDO, the petitioner is holding two posts, contrary to the above said provision. Hence, the RDO has rightly issued the impugned proceedings cancelling the petitioner’s authorization and there is neither any illegality nor procedural irregularity in issuing such proceedings. The learned Single Judge has rightly appreciated the said fact and dismissed the writ petition. The petitioner has not raised any valid ground warranting the interference of this Court and the writ appeal deserves dismissal. 8. With the above observations, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand Sd/-Wl. RANIESH BABU deputy register closed. //TRUE COPY// OFFICER SEC To, Sri Ineni Venkata Prasad, Advocate [OPUC] ^ Sri Mattegunta Sudhir, SC for ZPP, MPP & Gram^- 1. OneCCto 2. OneCCto Panchayat[OPUC] ^ GP for Civil Supplies, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 3. TwoCCsto 4. Three CD Copies. ssb -S’ HIGH COURT DATED:18/03/2025 JUDGMENT WA.No.225 of 2025 * 01 APR 2025 ^ , Current Section & DISMISSING THE W.A. WITHOUT COSTS