* IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAV TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 1078 OF 2024 ^ 1^of the Letters Patent above named Writ Appeal under clause appellant begs to present this Memorandum of Writ Appeal against the orders dated 28.12.2024 in W.P. No. 31098 of 2024. Between; Mettu Srilatha, W/o. M. Jagadishvar Reddy, aged about 38 years, R/o. Garladinne Village, Peapully Mandal, Nandyal District. ...APPELLANT AND 1. S. Swetha, W/o S. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, aged about 39 years, Occ. Fair Price Shop dealer of Shop No. 1348046, Garledinne Village, Peapully Mandal, Nandhyal District. 2. S. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, S/o. S. Venugopal Reddy, aged about 42 years, Occ. Nominee Dealer of the Fair Price Shop Dealer of Shop No. 1348046, Garledinne Village, Peapully Mandal, Nandhyal District. ( Both the Respondents 1 and 2 are residents of Door No. 2-17, Garledinne Village, Peapully Mandal, Nandhyal District.) 3. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 4. The Joint Collector, Nandhyala District, Nandhyala. 5. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dhone, Nandhyala District. 6. The Tahsildar, Peapully Mandal, Nandhyal District. 7. The Deputy Tahsildar, Civil Supplies, Peapully Mandal, Nandhyal District. ...RESPONDENTS' lA NO: 3 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the impugned order dated 28.12.2024 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 31098 of 2024, pending disposal of the above writ appeal. Counsel for the Appellant;SRI SARANU PHANI TEJA ^ Counsel for the Respondents No.1,2: SRI PAPUDIPPU SASHIDAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.3: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES Counsel for the Respondents No.4 to 7: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER Bench Sr.No;-7 [3483] IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI APHC010601122024 WRIT APPEAL NO: 1078 of 2024 ...Appellant Mettu Srilatha Vs. ...Respondents S Swetha and others ********** Mr. Saranu Phani Teja Mr. Papudippu Sashidar Reddy for R.1 & R.2. GP for Civil Supplies for R.3 to R.6. Advocate for Appellant Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI : 21®^ January, 2025 DATE PC : The present writ appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 28.12.2024 passed in WP.No.31098 of 2024. 2. The petitioners, who are respondent Nos.1 & 2 in the present writ had filed the petition being aggrieved of the proceedings, dated 24.12.2024, whereby the license for running a fair price shop issued in favour of the 1®‘ petitioner had been cancelled by virtue of orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, who is respondent No.5 in the present writ appeal. appeal \ ! 2 HCJ & RQJ WA_1078_2024 3. The learned single Judge, however, by virtue of the judgment and order impugned, considering the fact that there was an equally efficacious alternate remedy available to the petitioners in terms of Clause 24 of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018, relegated the petitioners to avail such a remedy and further ordered that pending the appeal before the District Collector, the impugned proceedings, dated 24.12.2024 shall be stayed. Learned counsel for the appellant would urge that the learned single Judge failed to notice the fact that, in the meantime, the appellant had been appointed as a fair price shop dealer on temporary basis by virtue of order, dated 26.12.2024, and that even when the appellant was on caveat and before the learned single Judge, there was no mention made of the arguments which were advanced by the appellant before the said Court. 4. was 5. In any case, it is stated that since the appellant had been appointed by virtue of the order, dated 26.12.2024, there would be a predicament as to who would run the fair price shop inasmuch as the order staying the operation of the order cancelling the dealership of the 1 petitioner by virtue of proceedings, dated 24.12.2024, would have the effect of reviving the dealership of the said petitioner and it would be difficult to reconcile as to how the appellant who, in the meantime, has been permitted to run the dealership, would operate the said dealership. 3 >1^ - HCJ & RC,J WA 1078 2024 6. Learned counsel for the official respondents, on the other hand, would urge that having relegated the petitioners to avail the alternate remedy in terms of Clause 24 of the Control Order of 2018, it would have been appropriate for the learned single Judge to further allow the District Collector to exercise the authority in terms of Clause 24(d) of the said Control Order of 2018 which authorized him, pending the disposal of the appeal, that the order under appeal shall not take effect until the disposal of the appeal. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the learned single Judge in fact had not delved into the merits of the case, which would have justified the stay of the proceedings, dated 24.12.2024, and simply relegated the petitioners to avail the alternate remedy. In our opinion, there was no basis made out in the order impugned regarding 7. the necessity to stay the operation of the impugned proceedings. We, therefore, modify the judgment and order impugned to the extent that while the petitioners (respondents 1 & 2 herein) may prefer an appeal before the District Collector in terms of Clause 24 of the Control Order of 2018, the petitioners would be at liberty to proceed to prefer an application in terms of Clause 24(d), if so advised, which would be considered on its own merit by the District Collector. In case any such application is filed, the same may be disposed of not later than six weeks from today. We, however, make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and 8. 4 HCJ & RCJ WA_1078_2024 it would be open to the District Collector to pass such orders as may be warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The Writ Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M.RAMESH BABU deputy,REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// N OFFICER SE To, 1. S. Swetha, W/o S. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, aged about 39 years, Occ. Fair Price Shop dealer of Shop No. 1348046, Garledinne Village, Peapully Mandal, Nandhyal District. 2. S. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, S/o. S. Venugopal Reddy, aged about 42 years, Occ. Nominee Dealer of the Fair Price Shop Dealer of Shop No. 1348046, Garledinne Village, Peapully Mandal, Nandhyal District. ( Both the Respondents 1 and 2 are residents of Door No. 2-17, Garledinne Village, Peapully Mandal, Nandhyal District.) 3. The Principal Secretary, State of Andhra Pradesh, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 4. The Joint Collector, Nandhyala District, Nandhyala. 5. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dhone, Nandhyala District. 6. The Tahsildar, Peapully Mandal, Nandhyal District. 7. The Deputy Tahsildar, Civil Supplies, Peapully Mandal, Nandhyal District. 8. One CC to SRI. SARANU PHANI TEJA, Advocate [OPUC] 9. One CC to SRI. PAPUDIPPU SASHIDAR REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 10. Two CCs to GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati[OUT] 11. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravati[OUT] 12. Three C.D.Copies at nm HIGH COURT DATED:21/01/2025 ORDER WA.No.1078 of 2024 0 5 FEB 20?5 ■/3r O Co ^ . Current Section DISPOSING OF THE WA WITHOUT COSTS