Sarella Ratna Kumari v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
WP/13106/2025 · 2025-07-06
T C D Sekhar
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 18287 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 18287 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1
APHC010252642025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] MONDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 13106/2025 Between:
1. SARELLA RATNA KUMARI, W/O MAGAPU APPANA RAJA, AGED- 36 YEARS, OCC- FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, DNO- 3-140, CHURCH PETA, MODEKURRU VILLAGE, KOTHAPETA MANDAL DR.BR.AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT
...PETITIONER AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, AP SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL SUPPLIES, DR BR.
AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT, AMALAPURAM
3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOTHAPETA, KOTHAPETA REVENUE DIVISION, DR BR. AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT,
4. THE TAHSILDHAR, KOTHAPETA, KOTHAPETA MANDAL, DR BR. AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT
1
...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 may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the action of 4th respondent in issuing show cause notice vide proceedings - REF.(B) 03/ 2024 dated 23-04-2025 against the provisions of essential commodities Act 1955 and AP state targeted public distribution system control orders 2018 and also article 14 as illegal arbitrary and un constitutional and consequential set aside the show cause notice issued by - respondent no-4 vide proceedings no REF.(B) 03/ 2024 dated 23-04-2025 and to pass 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 may be pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuing to issuance of show cause notice vide proceedings no: REF.(B) 03/ 2024 dated 23-04-2025, issued by 3rd respondent tahsildar pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. MAKIREDDY MANOJ Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE
2. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES
The Court made the following:
1
ORDER:-
1. The present writ petitioner is filed questioning notice dated 23.04.2025 issued by the 4th respondent on the ground that the said authority does not have jurisdiction to issue the said notice. It is the case of the petitioner that she was appointed as Fair Price Shop Dealer for Shop No.0446539 of of Modekurru Village, Kothapet Mandal, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, Konaseema District by virtue of proceedings dated 08.05.2020 by the 2nd respondent.
2. It is further case of the petitioner that the 4th respondent was informed by the Assistant Project Manager, DRDA, Kothapet that the petitioner obtained loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from self Help Group, Kothapet and committed default in repayment. Based on the said information, the 4th respondent issued notice dated 23.04.2025 asking the petitioner to submit explanation as to why authorization of Fair Price Shop shall not be cancelled in view of violation of conditions of appointment. Impugning the said notice, the present writ petition is filed.
1
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.
4. Perused material available on record.
5. The counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per clause 8(4) of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control), Order, 2018, the appointing authority may, at any time in the public interest or on suo-motu on the receipt of complaint, after making such enquiry as may be deemed necessary and for reasons to be recorded in writing, suspend or cancel the authorization issued or deemed to be issued to the dealer.
6. Further, appointing authority is defined under clause 2(e), which reads as follows:
“Appointing Authority” means Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub- Collector having jurisdiction and District Supply Officer (City) in respect of Visakhapatnam or any officer authorised by the Government in respect of fair price shops for issue of authorization, so as to obtain and supply scheduled commodities to the card holders/beneficiaries under Targeted Public Distribution System or other Government Welfare and other schemes, NGOs etc.”
7.
Further, Disciplinary Authority’ is defined under clause 2(n), which reads as follows:
1
“Disciplinary authority” means Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub- Collector/District Supply Officer (City) in respect of city of Visakhapatnam.
8. He would further submit that as the said Control
Order it is clearly defined that the appointing authority means Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector having jurisdiction. Therefore, the 4th respondent lacks jurisdiction and power to issue the impugned notice. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader would fairly submit that the 4th respondent-Tahsildar does not have power to issue the notice impugned and requests this Court to pass appropriate orders in the matter.
9. It is not in dispute that as per clause 2(e) of APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018, the Revenue Divisional Officer/sub Collector having jurisdiction is the appointing authority and as per clause 8(4), the appointing authority may suspend or cancel the authorization after making such enquiry as may be deemed necessary.
10. In the case on hand admittedly the 4th respondent is not the appointing authority and therefore he does not have jurisdiction to initiate any action against the petitioner under
1
APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018 inasmuch as such power is conferred on Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector having jurisdiction. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable and accordingly the same is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. This order will not preclude the respondents from initiating any action against the petitioner in accordance with law.
11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR 07.07.2025 DR
1
70
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR
WP No.13106 of 2025 Date 07.07.2024
DR