APHC010298752018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: Between: Smt C Govindamma The State of AP and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T BALAJI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. S V MUNI REDDY 2. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES (AP) The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 13568/2018 ...PETITIONER AND The State of AP and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondent(S): GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES (AP) The Court made the following: [3311] MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) 2 BSB, J W.P.No.13568 of 2018 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “….to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in appointing the 5th respondent vide Proceedings L.Dis.B/1777/2018 dated – 4- 2018 (signed on 31-3-2018), without canceling or suspending the authorization of the petitioner as Fair Price shop dealer shop No.11 of Gudyanampalli village, Penumur Mandal, Chittoor District is illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 4 to continue the petitioner as Fair Price shop dealer shop No.11 of Gudyanampalli village, Penumur Mandal, Chittoor District and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 2. The facts, briefly stated, are as follows: a. Originally, the daughter of the petitioner, by name, C.Gayathri was appointed as dealer of fair price shop No.11 of Gudyanampalle village and post, Penumur Mandal, Chittoor district, on permanent basis, vide proceedings, dated 21.08.2010 issued by the 3rd respondent. Thereafter, she got married and resigned and thereupon, the petitioner was appointed as a dealer of the subject shop which is meant for ‘SC 3 BSB, J W.P.No.13568 of 2018 category’, on temporary basis vide proceedings, dated 21.01.2013, and has been distributing the essential commodities to the cardholders without any remarks. b. While so, all of a sudden, the 3rd respondent issued notification, vide Roc.B/7465/2015, dated 31.08.2015, inviting applications for filling up the vacancy of the subject shop No.11 treating the said vacancy as ‘Open Category’. As a result, the petitioner was deprived of her right to make an application for the dealership. Questioning the notification, the petitioner filed W.P.No.31697 of 2015 before the High Court. The said writ petition is pending adjudication. The petitioner is being continued as a temporary dealer and has been distributing the commodities to the cardholders. While the things stood thus, the petitioner came to know that the 3rd respondent has appointed the 5th respondent without issuing any notice to the petitioner, which is illegal and against the principles of natural justice. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Heard Sri T.Balaji, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the respondents. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the dealership of the subject shop was allotted originally to the daughter of the writ petitioner who belongs to ‘SC’ community, but by virtue of the 4 BSB, J W.P.No.13568 of 2018 notification, dated 31.08.2015, it was shown open to the ‘Open Category’ instead of keeping it reserved for the ‘SC’ category. He further submitted that the impugned order shows mala fides as it is shown to be signed on 31.03.2018, whereas it is dated __-04-2018. He further submitted that even a temporary dealer has right of hearing before terminating the dealership, and therefore, the impugned order passed terminating the dealership of the petitioner without there being an order of suspension or cancellation of the dealership, is illegal. 5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies placed on record the latest instructions of the Tahsildar, Penumur Mandal, dated 11.10.2024. It is represented that in view of the interim order, dated 18.04.2018, in I.A.No.1 of 2018, the writ petitioner is allowed to continue to supply the commodities and is now distributing. It is further submitted that the then Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor has issued notification vide B/1957/2017 dated 01.05.2017 inviting applications for filling up of the vacancy of shop No.11, Gudyanampalli under OC(General) category. According to the roaster maintained in the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor, this vacancy is reserved for OC General and that only the 3rd respondent has issued notification like that. 5 BSB, J W.P.No.13568 of 2018 6. The learned counsel for the 5th respondent submitted that the averments in the petition show that the authorization of the petitioner was not renewed after 2012 and further the vacancy was notified for the OC category and therefore, there is no illegality in appointing the 5th respondent, who belongs to OC category for the subject shop. He further stated that the petitioner had not shown that the subject shop was reserved for ‘SC’ category. With regard to the discrepancy in the date, he submitted that the difference is only one day. 7. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that the petitioner had been permitted to continue as a dealer till the impugned order was passed, and therefore, there is no question of apprehension of the petitioner being not continued. 8. As rightly contended by the petitioner, the impugned order was shown to be signed on 31.03.2018, whereas it is dated Nil-04-2028 which means non-application of the signatory to the proceedings and preparation of the order not as per the discretion exercised by the signatory. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. However, as the appointment of the petitioner is not on ‘permanent basis’, it is open to the authorities to take a fresh decision to fill up the vacancy on permanent basis as per law. 6 BSB, J W.P.No.13568 of 2018 9. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ B. S. BHANUMATHI, J 27-01-2025 RAR