HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR WP No.677 OF 2025 AND WP No.16237 OF 2025 COMMON ORDER:- 1. The subject matter in both the writ petitions is one and same, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Temporary Dealer of Fair Price Shop No.0387040, Railway New Colony, Circle-II, Visakhapatnam. It is her further case that since the date of appointment she has been distributed the essential commodities to the card holders without any complaint. It is further stated that till December, 2024 she was supplied essential commodities and thereafter without issuing any notice and without passing any order of suspension or cancellation against her, the respondent stopped supplying essential commodities. 3. It is further case of the petitioner that since January, 2025 the commodities supplied to the 6th respondent herein, when the same was questioned the respondents have informed that by virtue of order dated 11.05.2023 passed in W.P.No.26681 2 of 2017, the 6th respondent was appointed as permanent dealer of the Fair Price Shop in dispute. It is further stated that the 6th respondent without arraying the petitioner as party respondent in the said writ petition, behind his back filed the said writ petition. It is further stated that the 6th respondent is not eligible for appointment as a dealer of fair price shop in view of the fact that he has crossed the age limit as per relevant governmental orders issued in that regard. It is further stated that without issuing any notice and without passing order of suspension or cancellation order, the respondents cannot stop supplying the essential commodities to her. Questioning the same the present writ petition is filed. 4. After counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.4, the petitioner filed writ petition vide W.P.No.16237 of 2025 questioning the order dated 26.11.2024 passed by the 4th respondent through which the 6th respondent is appointed as fair price shop dealer in dispute. 5. The 4th respondent filed counter affidavit inter alia stating that the petitioner has got no locus standi to file the writ petition inasmuch as she was appointed as temporary dealer. It is further stated that an inspection was conducted in the fair price 3 shop of the petitioner on 08.12.2022 and found certain variation in respect of the stock maintained by her. Based on the same, the Senior Checking Inspector, Office of Assistant Supply Officer, Circle-II, Visakhapatnam sent report dated 10.12.2022 for initiation of action against the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the 4th respondent terminated the temporary dealer ship of the petitioner with immediate effect by order dated 17.12.2022 and in order to avoid inconvenience to the card holders, the stocks were handed over to the dealer of FP Shop No.0387019 by placing him as Incharge Dealer of the fair price shop in dispute. It is further stated that the 6th respondent is the adopted son of Smt.Boddeti Pydithallamma, who was the permanent dealer of the subject fair price shop. The said Smt.Boddeti Pydithallamma died on 27.11.2023 and thereafter the 6th respondent made an application seeking to appoint him as Fair Price Shop Dealer on compassionate grounds. By endorsement dated 19.11.2014, the 4th respondent informed the petitioner that for the present no action can be initiated in the matter and his application will be examined as per the further instructions received from the Government, in view of the instructions dated 18.07.2014 & 09.09.2014 issued by the Commissioner of Civil Supplies, 4 whereunder directed not to take any step to select and appointment of fair price shop dealers including legal heirs until further instructions. 6. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that in view of termination order dated 17.12.2022 passed against the petitioner, she has no locus standi to file the present writ petition more particularly when the said order is not challenged till date by her. 7. A separate counter affidavit is filed by the 6th respondent stating that he was adopted by the original dealer Smt.Boddeti Pydithallamma on 10.09.1979 and after the demise of his adopted mother he filed an application seeking to appoint him as fair price shop dealer and the same is could not be considered in view of the instructions issued by the Commissioner of Civil Supplies, which was informed to him by endorsement dated 19.11.2014 stating that his case will be considered after receiving further information from the Government. It is further stated that thereafter in view of change in policy and by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.33, dated 19.12.2018, the petitioner is entitled to be appointed as Fair Price Shop Dealer on compassionate grounds, as the government relaxed the upper age limit from 40 years to 5 50 years as on the date of death of Fair Price Shop Dealer. In view thereof, since his application is pending consideration before the 4th respondent, he filed writ petition vide W.P.No.26681 of 2017 and the said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 11.05.2023 directing the respondents therein to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as fair price shop dealer as per the revised guidelines and pass appropriate orders within one (01) month from the date of receipt of the said order. In pursuant of the said order, the 6th respondent was appointed as fair price shop dealer on 12.09.2024. 8. It is further stated that the petitioner has no locus standi to file present writ petition as her authorization was terminated by order dated 17.12.2022, more particularly when the said order is not questioned by her till date. 9. Heard counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and counsel for the respondent No.6. 10. Perused material available on record. 11. The petitioner is a temporary fair price shop dealer. Admittedly her authorization was terminated by proceedings dated 17.12.2022, based on irregularities alleged to have been 6 committed by her. Further the respondents have also initiated action under Section 6(A) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 while seizing the stock. Further the petitioner without challenging the termination order passed against her cannot maintain the present writ petition more particularly the petitioner was appointed as temporary fair price shop dealer. 12. The 6th respondent was appointed as Fair Price Shop Dealer on compassionate grounds by proceedings dated 26.11.2024 issued by the 4th respondent. On perusal of G.O.Ms.No.33, dated 19.12.2018, the Government relaxed the upper limit of the age from 40 years to 50 years and thereby permitted the legal heirs of the deceased fair price shop dealers to be appointed as such, if they are within the age limit as on the date of death of the original fair price shop dealer. Admittedly, the petitioner is within the permissible age limit as per G.O.Ms.No.33, dated 19.12.2018 and having examined the case, the 4th respondent by proceedings dated 26.11.2024 the 6th respondent as dealer. 13. On perusal of the record, it is clear that though initially the 6th respondent filed application in the year 2014, his case could not be considered in view of instructions dated 7 18.07.2014 and 09.07.2014 issued by the Commissioner, Civil Supplies Department. The same was informed to the petitioner by endorsement dated 19.11.2014, wherein it is categorically stated that his application will be examined as per the further instructions received from the Government. Thereafter, the 6th respondent filed writ petition vide W.P.No.26681 of 2017, which was disposed of directing the respondents to consider his case as per revised guidelines issued under G.O.Ms.No.33, dated 19.12.2018. In view of the directions given by the Court, the 6th is appointed as Fair Price Shop Dealer. 14. As already stated supra, the authorization of the petitioner was terminated by proceedings dated 17.12.2022 and without questioning the said termination order, the petitioner has no right to maintain the present writ petitions. Further, the petitioner was appointed as Temporary Fair Price Shop Dealer, therefore she has no vested right over the fair price shop in dispute. 15. For the foregoing reasons, they are no merits in the writ petitions and accordingly they are dismissed. The 4th respondent is further directed to supply essential commodities to the 6th respondent forthwith. No order as to costs. 8 As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR Dt.31.07.2025 DR 9 156 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR WP No.677 OF 2025 AND WP No.16237 OF 2025 Dated 31.07.2025 DR