APHC010373022022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 22754/2022 Between: 1. SMT. GANGIREDLA LAKSHMI,, D/O. RAMU NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 2-69, MAIN ROAD CHELUVURU VILLAGE, VIZIANAGARAM MANDAL AND DISTRICT. 2. EESAKAPALLI VENKATA LAKSHMI, W/O. LATE SRINU, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS H.NO. 1-19-30, B.C.COLONY V.T.AGRAHARAM VILLAGE, VIZIANAGARAM MANDAL AND DISTRICT. 3. THOGUROTHU RAJU,, W/O. BANGARU NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O. B.C.COLONY, JAGANNADHAPURAM, JONNAVALASA VILLAGE, VIZIANAGARAM MANDAL AND DISTRICT. 4. NIDDANA PADMAVATHI,, W/O. MUTYALU NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O. C-3, KOTHA VEEDHI MAIN ROAD, GAJULAREGA VILLAGE, VIZIANAGARAM MANDAL AND DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, 2 TCDS,J W.P.No.22754 of 2022 CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD., 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR, H.NO.10-152/1, SRI SAI TOWERS, ASHOK NAGAR, BESIDE SIRIS COMPANY. KANURU, BANDAR ROAD, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 4. THE DISTRICT CIVIL SUPPLIES OFFICER, VIZIANAGARAM MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 5. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT 6. THE THASILADAR, VIZIANAGARAM MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. ...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 a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the 5th respondent in issuing proceedings vide Rc.No.943/2022/A1 dated 02.07.2022 (notification) and paper publication for appointment of permanent dealers in Vizianagaram division and district with respect to the petitioner's fair price shop bearing No. 0281064, 0228077, 0281055 and 0228105 in Vizianagaram town and Mandal without there being any notice to the petitioners as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and in violation of GO.Ms.No.32, Dt.03.12.2018 and Art.14, Art.21 of constitution of India and consequently set aside the proceedings issued by the 5th respondent vide Rc.No.943/2022/A1 dated 02.07.2022 (notification) and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2022 3 TCDS,J W.P.No.22754 of 2022 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 pleased to stay all further proceedings issued by the 5th respondent vide Rc.No.943 /2022 /A1 /Dt.02 .07.2022 (notification) for appointment of permanent dealers in Vizianagaram division and district with respect to the petitioner's fair price shop bearing No. 0281064, 0228077, 0281055 and 0228105 of Vizianagaram town and Mandal pending disposal of the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. KANAKALA DEVI PRASANNAKUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 4 TCDS,J W.P.No.22754 of 2022 The Court made the following order: The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the notification in R.C.No.943/2022/A1 dated 02.07.2022 issued by the 5th respondent for appointment of Fair Price Shop dealers on permanent basis in Vizianagaram division. 2. The petitioners are temporary Fair Price Shop dealers having been appointed as such by virtue of proceedings issued by the 5th respondent on various dates. It is further case of the petitioners that the impugned notification includes the Fair Price Shops of the petitioners. 3. It is the specific case of the petitioners that the 5th respondent does not have jurisdiction to issue the notification under challenge inasmuch as, as per Clause 2(e) of the A.P. State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018, „Appointing Authority‟ means “the Joint Collector of the district or any officer authorized by the Government in respect of fair price shops for issue of authorization to such person as recommended by the committee in accordance with the procedure laid down by the Government as specified in the annexure-II to this Order, so as to obtain and supply scheduled commodities to the card 5 TCDS,J W.P.No.22754 of 2022 holders/beneficiaries under Targeted Public Distribution System or other Government Welfare and other schemes, NGOs etc”. 4. It is strenuously contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of Clause 2(e), the appointing authority is the Joint Collector of the District. He would further submit that in the case on hand, the impugned notification dated 02.07.2022 is issued by the 5th respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer. Therefore, the notification is liable to be quashed as the 5th respondent does not have jurisdiction to issue the same. 5. On the other hand, Sri Veneeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies would submit that, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 R/w. Section 5 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018. Under the said control order, no doubt, under Clause 2(e), the appointing authority is defined under which the Joint Collector of the district was name as such. Subsequently, by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.11, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS.I), dated 09.09.2020, Clause 2(e) was substituted and the appointing authority is defined as under: 6 TCDS,J W.P.No.22754 of 2022 “Appointing Authority” means Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub-Collector having jurisdiction and District Supply Officer(City) in respect of Visakhapatnam or any officer authorized 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. 6. He would further submit that, the petitioners were also appointed as temporary dealers of their respective fair price shops by the 5th respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer. If the contention of the petitioners is to be accepted, the very appointment of the petitioners is also without jurisdiction. He would further contend that the petitioners are temporary dealers and they do not have locus standi to question the notification issued by the 5th respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer and in support of his contention, he placed reliance on order dated 10.04.2023 in W.P.No.39554 of 2015 passed by this Court. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. Perused the material on record. 8. Admittedly, the petitioners are appointed as temporary dealers by the 5th respondent. The only point canvassed by the 7 TCDS,J W.P.No.22754 of 2022 learned counsel for the petitioners is that, the 5th respondent does not have jurisdiction to issue the notification under challenge inasmuch as under Clause 2(e) of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018, initially the appointing authority was the Joint-Collector having jurisdiction. Later, by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.11 dated 09.09.2020, Revenue Divisional Officer was named as the appointing authority in the place of the Joint-Collector of the district. The said amendment brought into the Control Orders, 2018 by virtue of the above mentioned governmental order. The same is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 9. From the above, it is clear that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be countenanced in view of the amendment made to Clause 2(e) of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018, by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.11, dated 09.09.2020. 10. Apart from the same, on perusal of the appointment orders issued in favour of the petitioners, it is clear that the 5th respondent appointed them as temporary Fair Price Shop dealers. From the above it is clear that, on one hand the petitioners are 8 TCDS,J W.P.No.22754 of 2022 claiming as temporary fair price shop dealers based on the appointment order issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer on the other questionings his jurisdiction in issuing the impugned notification. Further, the issue involved in the present case is no more res integra as the same was decided by this Court in W.P.No.39554 of 2015, holding that the temporary dealer cannot question the notification for selection of candidates on permanent basis. Admittedly, the petitioners are temporary dealers and they have no vested right, therefore they cannot challenge the impugned notification. In view of the foregoing reasons, there are no merits in the writ petition and accordingly the same dismissed. 11. It is needless to mention that, the petitioners may apply for being appointed as permanent dealers if they are eligible. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR Date.28.07.2025 KGR