IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HON’BLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 1332 OF 2025 'v,-» Between; R G Madtflety, s/o Ramallakota Lakshmanna, 51 years, Shop No. 1318026, -Occupation: Fair Price Shop Dealer, K. Markapuram Village, Kallur Mandal Kurnool District->^ ...PETITIONER u-- AND 1. The State gf AP, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat Buildings^ Velagapudi, Amaravathi. 2. The Collector (OS), Kurnool, Kurnool District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, l<urnool, Kurnool District. 4. The Tahsildar, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the particularly one in proceedings Rc.DT(LR)1421/2024 dated 23.12.2024 issued by the 3rd respondent in cancelling the Fair Price Shop Authorization of the petitioner Kallur Mandal, Kurnool in Shop No. 1318026, K. Markapuram Village District as illegal, improper, unjust arbitrary, colorable exercise of power, without considering the explanations of the petitioner, without following the procedure and contrary to Andhra Pradesh state targeted public distribution system (Control) order, 2018. lA NO: i OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the proceedings in Rc.DT(LR)142l'/2b24 dated 23.12.2024 issued by the 3rd respondent duly permitting the petitioner to run the Fair Price Shop No. No. 13180^, K. Markapuram Village, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MAHADEVA KANTHRIGALA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: ORDER w- APHC010020442025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] f MONDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 1332/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER R G Maddilety AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Ap and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1 .MAHADEVA KANTHRIGALA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 2 BSB, J W.P.No.1332 of 2025 HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI Writ Petition No. 1332 of 2025 ORDER: The Writ Petition is filed seeking the following prayer: “ to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings Rc.DT(LR)1421/2024, dated 23.12.2024 issued by the 3'"'^ respondent in cancelling the Fair Price Shop Authorization of the petitioner in Shop No.1318026, K.Markapuram Village, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District, as illegal, improper, unjust arbitrary, colorable exercise of power, without considering the explanations of the petitioner, without following the procedure and contrary to Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order^2018 and pass such order or orders ” The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows: 2. The petitioner was appointed as a fair price shop dealer for Shop No. 1318026, K.Markapuram Village, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District. Since the date of his appointment, the petitioner has been distributing essential commodities to cardholders without any interruption. While things stood thus, on 27.11.2024, the 4^*^ respondent submitted a report vide proceedings Lr.No.Rc.No.B.976/2024, alleging that on 26.11.2024, the Tahsildar and the Village Revenue Officer inspected the petitioner’s shop in the presence of mediators and found discrepancies in the stock. Based 3 BSB,J \A/.P.No.1332 of 2025 notice vide Rc.DT(LR)1421/2024 dated 29.11.2024, proposing to cancel authorization. Upon receiving the show- 3rd respondent issued a show-cause this report, the on proceedings the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation. However, the 3rd respondent issued cause notice without properly considering the explanation impugned proceedings. Hence, this writ petition. the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant ino for the respondent Heard learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing 3. Nos. 1 to 4. submitted that without offered by the dealer, the learned counsel for the petitioner The properly appreciating the explanation impugned order was passed. He further submitted that though appeal (s filed, the appellate authority was also not passing any order of interim and thereby the petitioner is aggrieved. 4. stay Government Pleader submitted that he had The learned Assistant not received any written instructions. However, since the petitioner has filed an appeal, it is the appellate authority which has to take a decision. 5. counsel for the petitioner contended that as appellate authority failed to heed to the petitioner's requests, the remedy but to approach this court by filing In reply, the learned 6. the petitioner had no alternative a writ petition. is observed that the variation in stock As seen from the record, it is at the petitioner’s shop is as follows; 7. 4 BSB, J W.P.No.1332 of 2025 Ground variation (kgs) Epos balance (kgs) Total Stock (Kgs) Issued (Kgs) EC Name SI. ► balance (kgs) No. V 2300 (-)1780 8980 520 9500 Fortified Rice 1 (-)743 7 750 508 Red Gram 515 2 (-)5 0 5 3 MDM 3 3 Jaggery Pkts (-)7 0 7 36 36 MDM 4 Fortified Rice (3 Kgs Pkts) (-)14 0 14 36 36 MDM Poil 5 (1/2 Its) (-)190 0 0 190 190 6 Jower The contents of the above table indicate that the petitioner was handling approximately 20 tons of rice, while the recorded variation is deficit of 1780 kgs. As per Clause 29(a) of the Control Order, 2018, a variation of 1.5% of the stock for the month is allowed. In light of this permissible limit, the variation in the stock is very negligible. As such, it is a fit case to pass orders in favour of the petitioner, in view of the inaction of the appellate authority. 7. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner within one (01) month from the date of receipt of this Court’s order. Meanwhile, the impugned order under appeal is stayed. 8. 5 BSBJ W.P.No.l332 of2025 There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M.PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// 5' SECTION OFFICER To, '' RnMinnTuSf Civil Supplied Department Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi. 2. The Collector (CS), Kurnool, Kurnool District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 4. The Tahsildar, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District 5. One CC to Sri Mahadeva Kanthrigala, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Civil Supplies, High Court of Andhra 7. Three CD Copies Secretariat Pradesh. [OUT] TF HIGH COURT DATED:27/01/2025 OF AND/y;^;^^ ORDER r * 0 6 MAR 2075 WP.No.1332 of 2025 llO 7 ^ . Curreni oeciion ^ DISPOSING OF THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS