APHC010601312024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 31348/2024 Between: K Vasumathi ...PETITIONER AND The State of A.P. and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PAPUDIPPU SASHIDAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following Order: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of Constitution of India more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings in Ref.No.C/898/2024, dated 05.11.2024 issued by the respondent No.3 as arbitrary and illegal, contrary objectives of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public 2 W.P.No.31348 of 2024 Distribution System (Control) Orders, 2018 and contrary to the well-established legal principles apart from being violative of the fundamental and Constitutional rights guaranteed to me under Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and pass…” 02. The petitioner was appointed as temporary dealer in respect of fair price shop No.1136015, Veerareddygaripalli, H/o Dappepalli Village, Lakkireddipalli Mandal, in the year 2007. While so, without conducting inspection, a show cause notice was issued by the 3rd respondent to the petitioner on 02.11.2024 vide Ref.No.C/898/2024 giving time till 05.11.2024 to submit the explanation to the following charges: i. That the FP Shop Dealer has shifted the FP Shop to another door number without any prior permission from the Higher Officials thus it is clearly established that, the FP Shop Dealer has violated rules 12 (n) of the A.P.S.T.P.D.S. (Control) Order 2018. ii. The card holders have stated that, the F.P. Shop dealer was not available at F.P.Shop, not distributing commodities regularly, thus it is clearly established that, the FP Shop Dealer has violated rules 8(14) & 10 (a) of the A.P.S.T.P.D.S. (Control) Order 2018. iii. The dealer is distributing commodities less quantity and collecting higher price, thus it is clearly established that, the F.P Shop dealer has violated Rules No. 12(1) (m) of the A.P.S.T.P.D.S. (Control) Order 2018. iv. During Inspection, the F.P. Shop Dealer & his family members are not cooperated, thus it is clearly established that, the FP Shop Dealer has violated clause 8(12) of the A.P.S.T.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2018” 3 W.P.No.31348 of 2024 03. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that without providing any fair opportunity of submitting the explanation or to participate in the enquiry, before expiry of the time for submission of explanation i.e., 05.11.2024, the impugned proceeding cancelling the dealership of the petitioner had been passed on vague allegations. 04. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies placed on record the written instructions of the 3rd respondent, dated 09.01.2025, reiterating the contents of the impugned proceedings. He further submitted that since the petitioner is a temporary dealer, the proceeding is not illegal and that the petitioner had not filed appeal and that the writ petition is not maintainable. 05. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner was a temporary dealer, he is entitled to the same protection as a permanent dealer. He further stated that the impugned order is illegal and the same can be questioned not only by way of an appeal but also by filing a writ petition. 06. He further contended that since the petitioner has been a temporary dealer since 2007, a right to continue to hold the dealership would accrue and placed reliance on decision of the Supreme Court in Neelima Srivastava Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors 1., wherein para 26 of the decision, Rules are usefully extracted as under: “26. Writ Petition No.3316 (SS) of 1986 filed by the appellant before the High Court challenging the modification in the terms of her appointment was stayed vide order dated 20.05.1986 during the pendency of this Writ Petition before 1 AIR 2021 SUPREME COURT 3884 4 W.P.No.31348 of 2024 the High Court. She again approached the High Court by filing Writ Petition No.7890 of 2003 challenging the order passed by the Joint Director of Education rejecting her claim of regularization. The two pending Writ Petitions were clubbed by the High Court and disposed of vide common judgment and order dated 23.01.2006 with the finding that the appellant is having all the requisite qualification and has worked for 21 years and she might have been appointed in a leave arrangement but by virtue of her satisfactory services, she has now acquired a Right to hold the post and continued in the institution and at this stage, it would not be appropriate to treat her as an appointee in a stop-gap arrangement and accordingly directed the State-respondent to consider for regularization under the relevant Regularization Rules.” 07. Considering submissions made on both sides and keeping in view the above legal proposition, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 08. In result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings dated 05.11.2024 is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI Date: 09.01.2025 NSM 5 W.P.No.31348 of 2024 158 HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 31348/2024 Date: 09.01.2025 NSM