APHC010387492022 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: 23857/2022 Between: 1. KONA DEEPTHI, D/O. RAMAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/O. H.NO.12-3-55A, GOLLA VEEDHI, KOTHAPETA, VIZIANAGARAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI,GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT., 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR, H.NO.10-152/1, SRI SAI TOWERS, ASHOK NAGAR, BESIDE SINS 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. 2 TCDS,J W.P.No.23857 of 2022 6. THE THASILADAR, VIZIANAGARAM MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 7. GUNDLA CHAITANYA LAXMI, D/O LAXMANA RAO, D.NO 26- 2-6,KUMARA VEEDHI,DESANNAPETA, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 8. METTA APPALA INDHIRA BHARATHI, W/O DUKKA AKKU NAIDU, S.C COLONY, RACHABANDA, JONNAVALASA, JAGANNADHAPURAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. RR 7 AND 8 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURTS ORDER DT 15.03.2024 VIDE ORDERS PASSED IN I.A.NO 01 OF 2023. ...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 topleased 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/ Dt.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. 0281015situatedatcity Bus stand, Vizianagaram town and Mandal without their being any notice to the petitioner 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/Dt.02.07.2022 (notification) and pass IA NO: 1 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 /Al/ D t.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. 0281015 situated at city Bus 3 TCDS,J W.P.No.23857 of 2022 stand, Vizianagaram town and Mandal pending disposal of the writ petition and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 implead the Proposed Respondents 7 to 8 herein as Respondents 7 to 8 in the main Writ Petition - W.P.No.23857 of 2022 and I.As and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2023 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 vacate the Interim stay, dt.02.08.2022 in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in W.P.No.23857 of 2022 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KANAKALA DEVI PRASANNAKUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KRISHNA RAO M 2. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES 4 TCDS,J W.P.No.23857 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 petitioner is temporary Fair Price Shop dealer of Shop No.0281015 at City Bus stand, Vizianagaram town, having been appointed by virtue of proceedings issued by the 5th respondent on 05.02.2016. It is further case of the petitioner that the impugned notification includes the Fair Price Shop of the petitioner. 3. It is the specific case of the petitioner is 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.23857 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 petitioner 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.23857 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 petitioner was also appointed as temporary dealer of her respective fair price shop by the 5th respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer. If the contention of the petitioner is to be accepted, the very appointment of the petitioner is also without jurisdiction. He would further contend that the petitioner is temporary dealer and she does 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 petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. Perused the material on record. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner is appointed as temporary dealer by the 5th respondent. The only point canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the 5th respondent does not 7 TCDS,J W.P.No.23857 of 2022 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 petitioner. 9. From the above, it is clear that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner 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 order issued in favour of the petitioner, it is clear that the 5th respondent appointed her as temporary Fair Price Shop dealer. From the above it is clear that, on one hand the petitioner is claiming as temporary fair price shop dealer 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 8 TCDS,J W.P.No.23857 of 2022 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 petitioner is temporary dealer and she has no vested right, therefore the petitioner 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 petitioner may apply for being appointed as permanent dealer if she is 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