APHC010532842024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 27514/2024 Between: N.venkataramana ...PETITIONER AND State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M M M SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 2 W.P.No.27514 of 2024 ORDER: The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue a writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the order issued by the 3rd respondent vide D.Dis(E)/1239/2024 dt.29.08.2024 accepting the petitioner's resignation and consequential order dt:29.08.2024 issued in favour of 5th respondent entrusting the distribution work in respect of fair price shop No.1085056, Santhapeta, Chittoor Town, Chittoor Dist., without issuing any notice to the petitioner before accepting the resignation and without following due procedure under The Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the orders dt:29.08.2024 by allowing the petitioner to run the shop as usual till his appointment is valid, and pass…” 02. The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows: The petitioner was appointed as a permanent dealer for fair price shop No.1085056, Santhapeta, Chittoor Town, Chittoor District by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittor, in the year 2008. While so, with the pressure of the Village Revenue Officer and some political leaders, the petitioner had submitted his resignation on 21.08.2024. Subsequently, without issuing any notice to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent issued the impugned proceedings vide D.Dis(E)/1239/2024, dt.29.08.2024, accepting the resignation of the petitioner and simultaneously 3 W.P.No.27514 of 2024 appointing the 5th respondent as temporary dealer vide another proceedings on the same date. Thus, the writ petition was filed. 03. Though notice was served on the 5th respondent, no appearance has been made. 04. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies represented that he had no instructions. 05. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the resignation letter of the petitioner was accepted without duly following the procedure i.e., issuing notice to the petitioner before accepting the resignation as held by this High Court in the case of Chinnareddigari Sambasiva Reddy vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh1, wherein, at para 16, it is held as follows: “Ordinarily, no fair price shop dealer would like to quit his assignment. If such extra-ordinary desire is expressed by any dealer, it is incumbent upon the appointing authority to put the dealer on notice before accepting the resignation as, foul play by vested interests cannot be ruled out. Therefore, I cannot appreciate the action of respondent No.3 in purporting to ratify the hasty and unauthorised action of respondent No.4 without even trying to get the confirmation from the petitioner as to whether he has sent his resignation out of his free will or the same is secured by any vested interests by force. The failure of respondent No.3 to make an enquiry in this regard by issuing notice to the petitioner vitiates the entire action of respondent Nos.3 and 4 in easing out the petitioner from the fair price shop dealership. As respondent No.3 has not 1 2015 (1) ALD 645 4 W.P.No.27514 of 2024 properly exercised his jurisdiction in acting on the purported resignation of the petitioner, his action culminating in acceptance/ratification of resignation of the petitioner is declared as illegal and the impugned order is, accordingly, set aside. As the petitioner is inclined to continue as the fair price shop dealer, he shall be permitted to continue as such under the authorization held by him.” 06. In view of the above proposition of law, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In the result, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 29.08.2024. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI Date: 10.02.2025 NSM 5 W.P.No.27514 of 2024 86 HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 27514/2024 Date: 10.02.2025 NSM