APHC010451822025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 973 of 2025 Bench Sr.No:-2 [3483] Koripuri Girija Bhavani ...Appellant Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Appellant : Mr. K Srinivas Advocate(s) for Respondent(s) : GP for Civil Supplies for R.1 to R5, Mr. Sk. Rafi representing Mr. M M M Srinivasa Rao for R.6 CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 23rd September, 2025 P C : The present writ appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 04.08.2025 passed in W.P.No.19947 of 2025. 2. By virtue of the judgment and order impugned, the learned single Judge issued directions to the official respondents to supply essential commodities to the petitioner as a fair price shop dealer till such time as the petitioner’s dealership was terminated or suspended. 2 HCJ & RC, J WA_973_2025 3. Learned single Judge proceeded on the premise that in the absence of any cancellation of dealership of the petitioner or its suspension, denying the petitioner’s right to run the fair price shop would be illegal and arbitrary. Reliance was also placed by the learned single Judge on a Full Bench judgment of the A.P High Court in Oleti Tirupathamma v. District Supply Officer reported in 2002(1) ALD 577. 4. In the present writ appeal, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the petitioner had not disclosed in the writ petition that the appellant had already been appointed as a fair price shop dealer although on temporary basis by virtue of order, dated 25.07.2025 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajamahendravaram. It was urged that unless and until the order, dated 25.07.2025, was also questioned and set aside, the appellant would continue to have a right to run the fair price shop in terms of the order passed by the R.D.O. It was urged that had the appellant been incorporated as a party respondent in the writ petition and had notice been issued to the appellant herein, the learned single Judge would have been apprised of the legal position in that regard. It is also stated that the petitioner suppressed the factum of the appellant’s appointment from the learned single Judge. 3 HCJ & RC, J WA_973_2025 5. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, have no objection in case the matter is remanded to the learned single Judge for consideration afresh and to determine the effect of the order, dated 25.07.2025, on the rights of the petitioner. 6. Be that as it may, we allow the present Writ Appeal and remand the matter to the learned single Judge for consideration afresh. The judgment and order impugned is accordingly set aside. The position as it exists on spot shall continue till the matter is considered afresh. The appellant is incorporated as a party respondent in W.P.No.19947 of 2025 and shall figure as respondent No.6. The appellant would be entitled to file his response to the writ petition within two weeks from today. Registry is directed to list WP.No.19947 of 2025 before the appropriate Bench as per Roster on 07.10.2025. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J Vjl