APHC010656732025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 34061/2025 Between: 1. CHINTAGUNTA VIJAYAMMA, W/O PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, D.R.NO.1-203-P-43, POOLA SUBBAIAH COLONY, MARKAPUR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH- 523316. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY (REVENUE) GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH, NELAPADU, AMARAVATHI 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 3. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT SCHEDULED CASTES COOP.SOCIETY LTD., ONGOLE, ANDHRA PRADESH ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or order or diction declaring the action of the Respondent No.3 herein in without issuing notice to the Petitioner 2 directly issued paper publication dt.22.11.2025, Page No.11 notification for calling fresh applications to the allotment of Room No.8. P.D.S.C.C Ltd, Ongole to others without due process of law more particularly, in conscience with the provisions of law u/s 12(a)(1), any rights provided in the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (Central Act 22 of 1955) and the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Central Act 33 of 1989) and rules thereon or abetment thereof, the petitioner got allotted the Room No. 8, P.D.S.C.C Ltd, Ongole vide RC. No.M4/292/2004 dt.23.03.2011, Markapur, Prakasam District, continuously running the shop, without any hindrance and consequently directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner, not to evict the Petitioner without due process of law and pass such other order or orders as the Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and pass such other orders. IA 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 IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 May be pleased to Vacate the Interim Order passed W.P.No.34061/2025 dated 10.12.2025 and pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K LAXMANA SASTRY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GANDRALA RATHNA KUMAR SC For APSCCFC LTD The Court made the following: 3 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No.34061 of 2025 ORDER: 1. The present Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of Respondent No.3 in proceeding for paper publication dated 22.11.2025 calling for fresh applications for allotment of Shop No.8 in Prakasam District Scheduled Castes Co-operative Society (P.D.S.C.C.) Ltd., Ongole, without issuing any notice to the Petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The Petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste Community and was allotted Shop No.8 in P.D.S.C.C. Ltd., Ongole, Prakasam District by Respondent No.3 vide RC.No.M4/292/2004, dated 23.03.2011 and has been running Chilli Powder Making Machine and has been regularly paying rent to Respondent No.3-Society. It is stated that Respondent No.3 directly issued the impugned paper publication on 22.11.2025 calling for fresh applications for allotment of shop of the Petitioner to others without issuing any notice to the Petitioner. It is stated that the Petitioner submitted a representation to Respondent No.2/District Collector vide PGRS Receipt No.5549, dated 24.11.2025 requesting to continue her in the said shop, so as to enable her to lead her livelihood and the same was acknowledged vide Proceedings 4 dated 23.02.2011, issued by Respondent No.2/District Collector-cum- Chairman of the Society. As there was no response, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. In the Counter-Affidavit filed by Respondent No.3, it is stated that there is one shopping complex consisting of 11 shops in Markapur Town and a notice was issued to all the occupants on 04.09.2025 vide Rc.No.AEO/41/2025 to submit their eligible allotment orders for issuing necessary orders. In reply, the tenants had submitted documents, which have been found as not selected by the District Selection Committee and some are issued by the Revenue-authorities without the knowledge of Respondent No.3-Society. 4. It is further stated that the Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.26, Social Welfare (SCP) Department, dated 18.08.2025 in which guidelines are issued to establish a uniform and transparent process for the selection. In that context, applications were invited from the public, by issuing paper publication for allotment of vacant shops and for regular allotments. It is stated that the Petitioner also need to participate in the selection process and cannot claim to be in the shop for all times to come. 5 5. Heard Sri K. Lakshmana Sastry, learned counsel for the Petitioner the and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 as well as Sri Gandrala Ratna Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for Respondent No.3- Society. 6. The Petitioner is a woman belonging to Scheduled Caste (SC) Community and has been eking out her livelihood in the shop-in- question for number of years. There appears to be no dues in rents from Petitioner nor there are any allegations of irregular payment of rents. The paper publication states that the applicant should be between the age of 25 to 45 years for allotment and the Petitioner being over 45 years as per the cause title, would not be in a position to apply for allotment of shop-in-question and there appears to be no rationale in excluding the Petitioner and similarly placed, from even being considered for allotment. 7. In the light of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of, with the following directions; (i) The Respondent-authorities shall consider the case of Petitioner for continuance in the shop-in-question, taking into consideration the financial status of the family of Petitioner and on payment of prevalent market value of rent; 6 (ii) In the event, Respondents are of the opinion that the Petitioner is not entitled to continue, a reasonable time be granted for vacating the shop-in-question; (iii) No order as to costs. 8. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 21.04.2026 IS 7 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No.34061 of 2025 Date: 21.04.2026 IS